[KPGv2]

AI should not be used to replace a core part of what makes us human: creation of art. There is no such thing as AI art. On all fronts, we must fight this and brook no compromise.

Compounded upon this is that artists were ripped off to train AI, which is now being used to destroy artists' livelihoods.

[threethirtytwo]

But if what the AI produces is objectively better then what right do I have to speak against it?

Are you fighting for truth? Or survival while admitting it is better?

[KPGv2]

> if what the AI produces is objectively better then what right do I have to speak against it

"What if the atomic bomb is objectively better at killing people? What right do I have to speak against it?"

That's what you're asking.

It will, at a definitional level, never be able to produce objectively better art.

It can already produce objectively better photorealistic images. But that's not what art is about. A 5yo with a camera can produce more photorealistic images than Picasso. But Picasso is the artist.

> Are you fighting for truth? Or survival while admitting it is better?

Both. AI cannot understand truth. It doesn't understand anything. It can give you a simple sentence, but it doesn't even understand the underlying grammar.

Regarding survival, yes, I think having machines do the fun stuff for us is a fucking tragedy, and we should with all our might oppose it. Otherwise, why don't we all just blow our brains out and let AI enjoy the planet?