> Simply describing a picture and letting AI generate it shouldn't be enough Interesting take, and I've heard this many times. I'm curious to explore this furt

> Simply describing a picture and letting AI generate it shouldn't be enough Interesting take, and I've heard this many times. I'm curious to explore this further and see why you think that is, and where do you draw the line? Is it the "low effort"? Is it the "automated" stuff? Is the process of setting it up, prompting it and choosing a result not enough "creative input"? If so, why? Let's take a "real world" example as analogue. Say I setup a camera on a tripod. I set it to take pictures every 1 second, and leave it there. Come back 1hr later, and go through the pictures. I select one of the sunset I like, and post it. Would I not have copyright on that picture? I wasn't there when it was taken. But I did setup the camera and selected the end result. How is that different? Taking it back to genAI, say I build/train/finetune my own model. Would it now have enough "effort" from me that I can use those generations? Is this an effort thing or is it more? Or is it just that someone else did the work? What about random "art"? As in art based on random numbers. Say I write a script in python to use random math formulas to "draw" on a canvas. I let it run for a couple of hours, come back, look at the results and select one. Do I not get copyright on the resulting "art" because it was randomly generated by a script? Does it matter if the script was written by me? Would it be different if you download my script and generate the art yourself? Would you not have copyright? I guess what I'm trying to say is "where do we draw the line?". It's not clear to me why people say "simply prompting and selecting isn't creative enough". This distinction wasn't there before. Plenty of "art" out there based on random processes + curation. Why the sudden change?