They’re right though, of course

please insert card or select payment type

I’d bother responding if I thought you’d engage in good faith. Instead here’s a reply of equal value and cognative effort:

TrickDacy’s reply is a textbook strawman, and the giveaway is that his sentence changes the subject from value to art.

What FauxLiving actually argued A narrow point about consistency: “made by an automated/machine process” is not by itself a reason to assign zero value, because we routinely value machine-made things (cars, machine-paved roads). The claim is about process not being a disqualifier — it says nothing about degree of value, and nothing about art specifically.

What TrickDacy substitutes “we use cars ⟹ AI slop is art.” That’s three distortions stacked:

1. Strawman — FauxLiving never claimed AI output is art, nor that it’s good. He claimed machine origin ≠ automatic worthlessness. TrickDacy attacks a stronger, sillier claim that was never made.
2. Equivocation on “value” — The premise is “machine-made things can have value”; the rebuttal swaps in “is art / is good.” Valued and art are not the same predicate. Even a maximally charitable reading fails, because the original argument only needs some machine-made things to be valued, not all automated outputs to be excellent.
3. Question-begging via “slop” — Labeling the output “slop” assumes the conclusion (worthless) that’s under dispute. A loaded label isn’t an argument; it’s the verdict smuggled into the noun.

The underlying logical structure FauxLiving offers an argument by analogy on process: industrialization automated physical labor, and we didn’t conclude its products were valueless. The valid inference is only that automation per se is a poor disqualifier. TrickDacy treats that narrow, defensible claim as if it were a sweeping aesthetic endorsement — the classic move of refuting the argument you wish your opponent made.

Note what he didn’t do: engage the consistency point at all. If machine origin really were disqualifying, he’d owe an account of why the car case is exempt. He skips that and just reasserts the conclusion, which is why the reply reads as ridicule rather than rebuttal.

They’re faking it.

Wait, what did you say?

How about AI will never want to be loved?

The key is needing to impress people to convince them to feel a certain way about you, something that garlic bread does not capture.

Go listen to Skullgrid

That’s right, I’m Mr OpenAI and I’m here to say, having your privacy violated through backdoors is A-OK!

AI doesn’t “make” anything. It steals. All you get when you prompt an AI, is a poor copy of an original piece that it was trained on. Otherwise, you’re completely correct.

I don’t think anyone would ever refer to an instruction manual as art.

Grandma’s cookbook?

My lactose intolerance finally makes sense.

There have in fact been very successful art installations involving human waste and feces.

Or installing a urinal as an exhibit in an art museum? That one was pretty famous.

Hell, my interpretation of the “derivative works” clause of GPL stipulates that all llm and genai products should also be gpl.

…an interpretation broad enough to cover that would also mean that anyone who has ever seen GPL code before would only ever be able to write GPL code ever again. The idea of which I imagine would give Richard Stallman an erection you could see from space,

I would suspect it would end in a similar manner to reverse engineering code, if you get a description of the whole film without specific products or actors, then recreate from that, then yes. But if you directly compare the scenes and make corrections to the output to make them closer, then no.

But you’ll have to do it and get sued anyway so the courts can rule on it.

You’re not really creating anything.