Please do not misrepresent what I wrote. Because you did that. A lot. I did not argue for gen ai. I also did not argue against it - which might have mislead you to the belief that everyhing I wrote must somehow be an argument for gen ai.
It is also extremely doubtful that theft-based AI use is as ubiquitous as you are suggestion.
New software code by google is 25% ai generated to put out a known number of the industry. And for your tained touch thinking it does not take that much. A single function would be enough.
Your rhetoric about theft-based AI merely being "progress" akin to photography is complete disingenuous sophistry
You accuse me of a fallacy by constructing a strawman.
Usage of a term like "theft ai" begs questions about "non-theft-ai". So I described a scenario where gen ai would be trained ethical - the non-theft-ai - and the consequences. Namely that the advantage of that tech would still exist.
Your whole argument amounts to nothing but excuse-making and rationalization and red herrings and strawman fallacies
My what?! What argument are you even talking about? I like semantics and to talk about fallacies. So kindly point out what you think the fallacies are. I am especially interested in the strawman fallacy you claim I used.
I was giving you my opinion about the matter. My point of view, my observations. I made a lot of claims, not arguments. And the whole post itself was also not an argument. I mostly wanted to point out to you how impractical your tainted touch approach is and how shortsighted your theft rhetoric is.
I did not even give my stance about gen ai! If you wanna know, I see it very critical, but also pragmatical. Without a Butlerian Jihad ai will stay. And I care more about the usage of ai then how it was made. Struggling artists will still be out of work when ethical ais do their job. We need future proof solutions. Not shortsighted method based solutions, like banning "theft" ai.