why is there even a debate that ai “art” is better? If you want ai to generate you an image of mickey mouse for an example, ai has to analise an image of mickey mouse and then spit it out. but before any of that ever happens somebody has to make that image first, and how do they do that? BY DRAWING IT!!! their arguement that “ai art is better” makes just as much sense as trump’s fee on wildfire smoke from canada (which it doesnt)
In the 20the century between copy machines and vhs tapes, later the internet, there was a major decoupling of media and medium, and it broke a lot of peoples brains because the legal frameworks didn’t make a distinction.
A book is paper and ink on it in the shape of words bound in a thing. We decoupled the words and the paper, the images and the film, etc. And we got IP law, which decided with fuckedup priorities that ownership must be protected and dealt with none of the underlying fucking philosophy.
Now we’ve decoupled images and art. Still calling literally battle as images ‘art’. Not dealing with any of the underlying problems or understandings or complexity, because we hate all those things.
This is just great and I love it. A society of children taking themselves apart with the only adults in sight being sociopathic 14 year olds who want to rape a literal newborn. All of our incentives all of our culture all of our ideas of who and what we are are made for control and dehumanization. We cannot be trusted with this analysis, or even with googly eyes stuck to a pencil.