[jacquesm]

> I still don't get why you don't see it as a tool and not the creator itself.

If after 33 comments in this thread and countless people trying to explain a part of it you don't get it that may be because you either don't want to get it or are unable to get it. Restating it one more time is not going to make a difference and I'm perfectly ok with you not 'getting it', so don't worry about it.

AI without real art as input is noise. It doesn't get any more concrete than that. Humans without any education at all and just mud and sticks for tools will spontaneously create art.

[petralithic]

Or perhaps your initial premise ("AI without real art as input is noise") is simply wrong. By "get it," I'm trying to understand why you'd believe such a premise, yes even after 33 comments, because there is no underlying rationale to it, or rather, you never state it in a direct manner.

[necovek]

This is where you might be "not getting it". A human can carefully weigh every word, every swipe of a brush, or every tone... weigh it for the emotional expression and connection it produces (frequently subconscious). Whereas AI as a tool simply can't.

This is a difference between using a gradient in Photoshop, which is still a tool, and generative AI which will make "decisions" you as an author can't explain or connect with.

[petralithic]

How is this different from an electronic music producer? They similarly arrange notes without having played them physically. So too with people generating an image as a rough draft then editing every part of it, which is mainly what I'm talking about, not someone who types in a prompt and accepts whatever comes out.

[jibal]

Some people are simply irrational, and there's no point trying to point out to them their logic errors.