Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is that question supposed to be profound? Because surely someone has explained the formation of our celestial bodies to you.
Nope. That is what's called a rhetorical question and a pretty good one because obviously it stirred some emotion in you. Was your question supposed to be profound? Surely someone has explained to you that record players don't compose music. Perhaps you could be a little more charitable and less toxic here and answer my obviously non-rhetorical question: Why shouldn't I enjoy things that were created through an autom…
I guess if your goal is just to get any reaction, it was good, since it definitely stirred up annoyance in me? Unfortunately it also showed that you're fundamentally misunderstanding the arguments brought against AI media, be it willfully or accidentally. Either way, it gives me zero reason to want to discuss the topic with you.
> Was your question supposed to be profound? Surely someone has explained to you that record players don't compose music.
No, it's a stupidly simple question. GP is equivocating two things that obviously show fundamental qualitative differences, but did not give any reasons why this equivocation is supposed to make sense.
When I see comments where the only interpretation I can see has major and obvious logical gaps, I sometimes ask the obvious question in the hopes that they can show me a perspective I haven't properly encountered before. Because surely all of us are capable of recognizing how weak arguments based on "two topics look vaguely similar once you strip all nuance", when you can do the same with almost any two things?