> Even if AI is just "faster artist", it doesn't necessarily mean the the laws should treat AI and human artists in the same say. I think that's an entirely di

> Even if AI is just "faster artist", it doesn't necessarily mean the the laws should treat AI and human artists in the same say. I think that's an entirely different discussion to have. I think AI generators are not faster artists, they're generative tools. Given the amount of prompt engineering and output editing, I'd say significant human input and creativity is still involved. Even in cases where no such work is being done by a human, it's just a generator, not a person. We have been making generated artwork for as long as computers exist, it's just that the quality, artistic range, and accessibility have made a jump now. > Car is just a faster way to let you move from A to B. But laws treat cars and pedestrians vastly different. I would say the laws treat printing presses differently from computers, but so far we haven't had any laws (that I know of) trying to protect human typesetters from modern DTP software. > Laws are extremely inconsistant. True.