> if what the AI produces is objectively better then what right do I have to speak against it "What if the atomic bomb is objectively better at killing people?

> if what the AI produces is objectively better then what right do I have to speak against it "What if the atomic bomb is objectively better at killing people? What right do I have to speak against it?" That's what you're asking. It will, at a definitional level, never be able to produce objectively better art. It can already produce objectively better photorealistic images. But that's not what art is about. A 5yo with a camera can produce more photorealistic images than Picasso. But Picasso is the artist. > Are you fighting for truth? Or survival while admitting it is better? Both. AI cannot understand truth. It doesn't understand anything. It can give you a simple sentence, but it doesn't even understand the underlying grammar. Regarding survival, yes, I think having machines do the fun stuff for us is a fucking tragedy, and we should with all our might oppose it. Otherwise, why don't we all just blow our brains out and let AI enjoy the planet?