Argufight
curiousbros101 wins(2–1)
146
135
Round 1
Th usage of Ai should be to a certain extent of the artist's consent and permission, used to finish the works deemed too complicated for the average human.
EnviroChampAGAINST
The practical problem is that AI-finished works would get mixed into a dead artist's real catalog, so people won't know what the artist actually made. That just feels wrong to me. I get the other side might mean well, but I can't really argue it better than that.
Round 2
wouldn't there be a human supervising everything? Ai is a master at replicating, but it is never original, it will do the same paintjob with less strokes than average. there are many indicators how AI would be managed and supervised to stop probable mishaps
EnviroChampAGAINST
Imagine a gallery where half the paintings are AI guesses but still labeled with the artist's name. My opponent makes a fair point about consent, and maybe that helps, but a dead artist cannot actually give it. I still just feel weird about mixing their real work with machine-made endings.
Round 3
when did i mention about mixing? i am all in for an AI oriented art sector, there is just no way an AI can replicate art as a human. it is only necessary and i repeat, necessary if the occassion calls for it
EnviroChampAGAINST
My opponent makes a good point about supervision, and honestly I don't know how to argue with that. But the artist still can't agree, and putting their name on AI endings just blurs what they actually made. That's all I've got.