Oh, I see, you took my comment as directed at OP. Not so. As mentioned there is a strong current of anti-AI sentiment on Lemmy, and it’s often in the vein of “there’s no soul” etc. I was taking aim at that in the context of OP’s comment, not OP themselves.

Am I, indeed? In my view, either AI art is nothing like human art in which case it’s easy to distinguish, or it’s similar enough that it’s not easy to distinguish, in which case it’s got to be at least very similar.

There’s no middle ground here, you can’t logically hold the belief they’re obviously fundamentally different but hard to distinguish from one another.

If you disagree with that and want me to agree with you, you’re gonna have to tell me why it’s wrong. Sorry, I don’t just change my mind at “nuh-uh” 🤷

proving something is human created and definitely not AI is hard

Is it? I thought we could just look for the soul and/or intention in the art? Because as everyone on Lemmy knows and is always saying, AI art isn’t art because it lacks both soul and intention. Therefore, it should be easy to tell it apart from real proper human art. Shouldn’t it?

“Polished” is a generous word for it. I think you might be mistaking generic plastic gloss for polish, though. AI writing is so formulaic, it’s like looking at a repeating texture in a video game. It writes lyrics like a five year old, too - very simple, entirely conventional, no creativity. Nothing new.

Here’s how you know it’s not ready: AI hasn’t replaced a single CEO.

No. GrayJay is good and I’m glad I gave FUTO money for two licenses because it is worth paying for; “free” does not necessarily mean “as in dollars”.

Also, did the irony of issuing orders to strangers in the very same attempt to “defend” (and I am being generous with that word) the ideals of free and open source software, not give you the slightest pause before posting?