Oh of course you can counter it. The issue is less with artistic interpretation but with the doublethink happening here. You can depict something as a stylized

Oh of course you can counter it. The issue is less with artistic interpretation but with the doublethink happening here. You can depict something as a stylized artistic representation that does not pretend to be accurate. I'm pretty sure the bombing of Guernica did not look exactly as Picasso portrayed it, but his painting is still a powerful piece that we can use to understand the artist's feelings about the historical event. And even in the most rigorous of documentaries, there is still room for artistry: you can convey information in an interesting and thoughtful manner that doesn't sacrifice factuality. You can't really simultaneously say that you strive for accuracy but, at the end of the day, you're "just" creating an artistic interpretation. That seems to conflate artistry with a failure to capture historical accuracy, which is so bizarre since those things are more or less orthogonal to each other. I think we can safely call a spade a spade here: people making lazy AI historical videos are just that; lazy. They found a cheap and easy way to churn out content that makes money, and their greed outweighs their commitment to truth or historicity.