I’m wondering if its a legitmate line of argumentation to draw the line somewhere.
If someone uses an argument and then someone else uses that same argument further down the line, can you reject the first arguments logic but accept the 2nd argument logic?
For example someone is arguing that AI isnt real music because it samples and rips off other artists music and another person pointed out that argument was the same argument logically as the one used against DJs in the 90s.
I agree with the first argument but disagree with the second because even though they use the same logic I have to draw a line in my definition of music. Does this track logically or am I failing somewhere in my thoughts?
There is the argument that the person prompting the AI is the artist, using a tool to get their inspiration out of their head and into the physical world.
AI doesn’t generate anything without human input, and you often have to refine the prompt to get it to produce what you want. It’s just a tool, and we’ve seen similar demonizations of tools using new technology before.
Some people still don’t think digital artists are actually artists because they use digital tools instead of physical ones.