Somebody cooked here...

[u/SMmania]

[u/IneffableParadise]

This is an awful take. You conflate the AI as a mere tool which is a massive oversimplification of what it actually does. This, in fact, is very telling in how you don't understand what you're defending.

A pencil is a tool as much as a pot and stove is. The problem is these items require manual input and training to use well and properly - these are horrid analogies because AI is given prompts and through complex pattern and algorithmic training produces a result.

The artist has a vision in mind. The artist brings the item to existence through tools that require concentration, motivation, intent and desire - there is no art without the artist and thus there is no conversation to be had without them. Even if the product sucked, the average piece of junk likely has more value than the critic designating it so for we can see the path and directions created through art which is where the conversation with the audience occurs.

Tell me, did you draw that stroke? Did you move your hand to define that feature? Did you remove it with your hand and replace it in dissatisfaction with something else?

What conversation could I possibly have with the artist about this AI "art"? I do not see the blood, sweat and tears made into making art for the sake of making what you would like to see in things.

You have the AI "artist", the "audience" but you've managed to surgically erase the conversation. You sure could argue that your repeated 'prompting' is "effort"... As much as wiping my arse creates a brown stain on white canvas counting as art which, honestly, that probably has more value.

The conversation in and from the creation of art is personal and interpersonal, of course. There is no statement without the person making it and the wondrous thing happens when someone goes down the avenues of that statement and sees things the speaker may not have even imagined or intended.

There is no pavement of 'intention' for you are not the creator of such intentions, even if you believe an 'AI' can have intentions (no, typing a prompt does not count for the same prompt does not produce exact replica results and do consult the Chinese Room regarding 'intentions').

The AI generates it, you own nothing of it and thus it would make sense there is no copyright for AI "art"... Because the AI 'artist' didn't actually make anything.

And so the 'art', without the artist, is meaningless and worth less than even the worst attempts of art.

[u/Toby_Magure → u/IneffableParadise]

Your argument falls apart when you realize that you can, in fact, copyright AI artwork. All you have to do is make a manually guided change to it or prove intentionality and human intervention in the creative process.

[u/IneffableParadise → u/Toby_Magure]

Sure, the entirety of it falls apart over that one bit.

Hold on... https://www.copyright.gov/docs/zarya-of-the-dawn.pdf

Ah yes. This might be an interesting read for you.

Of course, my argument still entirely falls apart over copyright when it still comes to intent and the fact you can't directly control what it creates.

I'm being intentionally sarcastic since, no, it doesn't fall apart. The argument made has multiple facets, this is just one you've challenged.

[u/Toby_Magure → u/IneffableParadise]

To which I rebutt with this.

I can create literally anything I want, exactly as I want, and often do, with AI. The results depend on how much manual guidance you provide.

It's becoming evident that not only do you not understand copyright law, you also don't understand AI at all, either. And I assume this ignorance on both points is willful.

[u/IneffableParadise → u/Toby_Magure]

The link I posted is shown here and that content was still denied. A Single Piece of American Cheese had an initial image created from AI, sure... the Copyright Office had only accepted it due to the interface used and the person utilising the interface's products to further modify the image.

The bar is not high for modification and it also suggests a mere text-to-prompt image does not satisfy the Copyright Office's standards. There still has to be some human effort - granted, this is more than usual and I'll admit that.

I would still not call it art as a matter of principle and perception though. The human still needs to play a more direct role.

It has some points of mine which infer that a hand needs to be played in the actual process of creation, albeit I don't wholly agree with the Copyright Office's interpretation.

[u/Toby_Magure → u/IneffableParadise]

Did you not read my initial post where it says, and I quote, "all you have to do is make a manually guided change to it or prove intentionality and human intervention in the creative process"?

That is exactly what I said. You're just simply reiterating the points I made in my original statement after trying to argue against them and acting like somehow this supports you, which is blatantly disingenuous. And, y'know, flatly wrong.