Copyright laws protects the ability of copyright holder to make money. The laws were created before AI and now obviously have to be adapted to new technology (like you didn’t really need copyright before the invention of printing). How exactly AI will be regulated is in the end up to society to decide, which most likely will come down who has the better lobby.

I’m saying humans, even ones opponents are complex and seldom governed by single motives. Most people understand it about themself but like to deny it to others, especially they disagree with or don’t like.

That does not even make any sense.

Thinking that people you don’t like are one dimensional won’t bring you very far.

Again if it’s just power and money then they would be very much interested in continuation of human spices.

I was just pointing out a flaw in your reasoning. There are no simple answers to complex questions.

Extinction would kind of interfere with the whole power and money thing.

Rather obvious punk.

That’s just what comes with internet becoming mainstream so mainstream cultural standards are applied to online conversations. It’s the difference between an opera and a punk club or something.

Photography can be art as well as AI generated images can be art as well. AI is a tool and people can create art with it. But also what is art is completely subjective to the viewer.

Sure, I even do photography professionally form time to time - I just don’t consider it to be a painting.

With this logic photography is a painting, painted at an impossible high speed - but for some reasons we make a difference between something humans make and machines make.