Ai generated art has a rather large definition. In this case, it would be feasible to say that Ai generated art, in this case, would mean art which uses Ai to help create the end result. By help, I mean that Ai is not responsible for creating the prompts or ideas, and only responsible for assisting the artist. My first argument is that Ai generated art can be eligible for awards in its OWN CATEGORY WITH THE SAME AI BEING USED IN THAT CATEGIRY, because this art is the same as any other art in the perspective that it requires effort to create a high quality end. It requires skilled use of the tool at hand, and in the end, a human was required in the making. The fact that the result is different proves that the skill needed for creating Ai generated art is needed instead of mindlessly jumping prompts.

You didn't rebut my definition of the motion, so I will assume you agreed to it. To rebut your argument, it should be noted that the motion does NOT mean we are letting people who are using Ai to generate bits of their work against 100% fully human works. We are judging them in their OWN category. In addition, they will be using the SAME AI GENERATING THEIR OWN PROMPTS. Unlike what you have stated, we are awarding these artworks because among people using the same Ai generators, there are always a few standing out, ones who especially put extra work into theirs. We also agreed that Ai generated art means people are not generating their artwork from scratch, they need to have their own ideas. For the second argument, I propose awarding Ai artworks to encourage small artists. Many artists cannot afford to learn the different styles and histories of artworks. Instead of judging them against the people who will have had more time to study art, we should be judging them fairly... against each other. Ai artwork would especially speed up process during their education, because a generative Ai would be free. I am merely proposing that Mona lisa shouldn't be compared with a kindergartener's scribble. But both did have equal amounts of work put into it. Ai generated art would help the kindergartener with the progress. It would accelerate the learning process, while also encouraging them to continue. Ai art also takes just as much skill to WIN the prize. To win the award, it must be something special. Not the thousands of slop on the internet right not. Something with more thought put into it. We do not allow different Ai usage, so it isn't a matter of who had the better tool. It is judging who has more passion, skill, and creativity. Small artists would be funded and perhaps, be able to liberate from Ai usage to compete with the real world. We do not give the Nobel prize for a sixth graders story, but we do give them the school prize.

You keep failing to see the point. We are not pitting the human artwork against Ai artwork. I have repetitively been mentioning this. We are NOT giving the ai art the same prize as the human made artwork. See my last sentence. Ai artwork is literally going to be awarded in its own category, forcing Ai artists to create better art work with their own sweat and skin. They are 6 year olds getting the school prize. Because we are pitting Ai users against each other, they are forced to create better works with more human touches in it. Separate judges, separate awards. And I directly stated that simply typing prompts in and generating the artwork will fail to reach standards to even participate in the awards. There has to be something of sweat and skin inside it. Obviously, people who use ai to generate art are probably not going to the same length as people who have been learning 10 years on the subject. But that is why I stated that it was a prize more resembling a school prize instead of the grand, 1 million dollar funding Nobel prize worthy award. It is more like a Kickstart for artists who have passion but doesn't have the tools needed. Your friend practiced oil painting for three years, but there are people who cannot even buy paint. Those people would wither and die away somewhere. The awards would help them improve and grow. Ai does, in fact usually train by stealing arts of other artists without care for the copyright laws. In that statement, it is unethical. But I proposed that Ai would be a temporary kickstarter in the previous argument. It isn't a permenant fix. People who can't afford to go to the museum or films would still be able to utilize ai to learn. But my 3rd argument will help you understand a bit better. Ai is unethical, and that is true. But we are pitting people who worked on an artwork using ai against the same kind. And this is an important part of my argument. The ai award would help people actually realize that ai is not the permenant fix, and that it is differentiated from normal art. It woukd help immature artists grow out from plagiarism and perhaps even quit, because their art is pitted against their own, and only the most original, skilled of them who truly used the ai only for good purposes would win. The third argument that I propose in favor of awarding Ai artworks, is that ai artworks can be specifically pitted against each other. By awarding Ai artwork in its own category, we have successfully seperated Ai artwork with normal artwork. Without the award, there would be no distinction. Modern art can be created in a blink of an eye as well, but is it truly 'fair' to award these just as much as other artworks with (as you have said) skin on the stake? You tell me, is it fair that a banana taped to a wall is worth millions but an unknown artist's handmade sculpture can be sold as a garden statue for 10 $? By creating a seperate category, we prevent the sloppy Ai artists from ripping off of others because making slop won't get them recognized as getting the award.