“Can be, but typically isn’t” isn’t strict in any sense. It’s the opposite of strict, by admitting more than one possibility. We’re still no closer to understanding what it is you think constitutes art, so we can’t have a proper discussion about how, if at all, non-AI generated art fails to be art in that sense, and whether that’s important.
Asking people what they mean by the words the say - especially when it’s a word like art which is literally memed on for being the source of endless debates regarding its nature and definition - is not some kind of juvenile trap; it’s a pre-requisite for having a productive conversation on the subject.
I will note, this is not an argument in favor of AI. This is just clinical “given up” disease. I think they call that cynicism.
The argument in favour is that people want to do it, so just let them get on with it. Simple.
“Can be, but typically isn’t” isn’t strict in any sense. It’s the opposite of strict, by admitting more than one possibility. We’re still no closer to understanding what it is you think constitutes art, so we can’t have a proper discussion about how, if at all, non-AI generated art fails to be art in that sense, and whether that’s important.
Asking people what they mean by the words the say - especially when it’s a word like art which is literally memed on for being the source of endless debates regarding its nature and definition - is not some kind of juvenile trap; it’s a pre-requisite for having a productive conversation on the subject.
The argument in favour is that people want to do it, so just let them get on with it. Simple.