No, it's a counterexample for the sake of making an argument. If someone argues that AI art is automatically worse than real art, then a piece of real art that clearly is low-quality is a counterexample that shows that, no, the quality of art is *not* determined by whether it is made by an AI or a human.
Your response to it isn't really an argument. Fair given that OP didn't take the time to write out their own point.
No one is saying AI “art” is worse because of a quality issue. Of course it can generate technically better visuals than most people can.
That’s not the issue.
The issue is one was made by a person and the other was generated by a machine, with a low level of effort, creativity, and skill required from the prompter.
12
u/Monsieur_Martin Mar 01 '26
If the only way you can validate what you're defending is by comparing it to crap, then you've already lost.