> I guess if your goal is just to get any reaction, it was good, since it definitely stirred up annoyance in me?

Do you think that my goal is only to get a reaction and not to try and make any other point? I think someone who was "just" trying to get a reaction probably would just curse at you or do something else. Reactions are signals though and annoyance in particular is a very useful signal, hopeful to the one who experiences it. More importantly though, why, when you responded to me the first time, did you not address the very obvious non-rhetorical variant of my question though and instead, decide to appeal to me with sarcasm about the profundity of the rhetorical variant?

I'm trying to engage here and not put my trauma on display so I'll try to be as straightforward as I can. I am sincerely trying to respond in kind to you by telling you the truth and I will be glad to explain, in detail, my point of view. So, let me do that:

> GP is equivocating two things...but did not give any reasons why...

Yes. And I had hoped to correct that equivocation by pointing out the many random and/or automated processes that produce beautiful or otherwise enjoyable things. I wasn't agreeing with GP, I was improving the position. And I did, because very many useful things are created without any human interaction.

> fundamentally misunderstanding the arguments brought against AI media

Okay and you haven't engaged with the point that I'm making at all. It's different than the GP's. You also haven't given me any reasoning to backup your point that I am fundamentally misunderstanding the arguments brought against AI media. You want reasons why and I want reasons why. Let's engage in a civil manner.

The point that we're engaging on, really, is not the GP's. It's what computerliker said about how "a computer can never be sad or horny or have taste. it can only make product" and that "having less media [created] by a computer is a loss".

Nothing to misunderstand there and I disagree strongly on both the implications of the first and the conclusion of the second quote. That's what I'm attempting to address and not every possible argument ever made about AI creations.

So, do you still think that I'm misunderstanding something? Also, what about my point? Do we really want fewer things created by random and/or automated processes simply because a human didn't create them? I don't think so.

user:	optimisticedits
created:	August 28, 2026
karma:	1