Here's a general principle: non-participants can have opinions about our thing (whatever thing that is). If they trot out the same naive dumb lines of thought over and over, and we can't put into words why they're wrong, that's a regrettable failure of discussion, but it's nobody's fault, and they should continue with their aggravating droning until we actually get our act together and find something effective to say in reply.

▲

ModernMech 10 hours ago | parent [-]

Yup and here's how the discussion always goes and why it persists:

> "AI images are not art."

> "Define art."

I have yet to see someone produce a definition for art which excludes AI generated images but includes various widely accepted forms of art.

▲

jplusequalt 8 hours ago | parent [-]

>I have yet to see someone produce a definition for art which excludes AI generated images but includes various widely accepted forms of art.

You can't define art for the same reasons you can't define what it is to be human. But most people can easily recognize what is/behaviors that are inhumane.

	▲	ModernMech 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		And yet, it's very problematic when someone thinks they've defined what it means to be human and decides to do something about everything that falls on the other side of their arbitrary line.