[slg]

The specific phrase used was "everything you see and hear" (emphasis mine). You weren't arguing this would be an optional tool that could be used in the creation of art. You were arguing that this will replace all other art. That isn't an argument that photography is an art equal to painting, it is an argument for it to replace painting.

[echelon]

> You were arguing that this will replace all other art.

The population of people who want to create art is higher than the people who have the classical skills. By sheer volume, the former will dominate the latter. And eventually most artists will begin to use AI tools when they realize that's what they are -- tools.

[slg]

Now combine that with the photography and painting analogy that you made in the previous post. Photography was invented some 2 centuries ago. Do you think the world would be better if every painter of that era, including the likes of van Gogh and Picasso, picked up a camera instead of a paintbrush?