Copy machine output doesn’t count as original works.
Movies that retell stories openly are adaptations that give credit to the original source. AI slop does not give attriution to what it is copying.
Movies that are inspired by prior works, which is basically everything, but intentionally do a new take are art because they have intent and meaning even if done poorly. AI slop is just regurgitating stuff.
I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make, I agree that a copy machine is not sentient. You can’t just decide that an inanimate object is “art” and then work backwards to say that the non-sentient tools that were used to create the work are the real artist.
Copy machine output doesn’t count as original works.
Movies that retell stories openly are adaptations that give credit to the original source. AI slop does not give attriution to what it is copying.
Movies that are inspired by prior works, which is basically everything, but intentionally do a new take are art because they have intent and meaning even if done poorly. AI slop is just regurgitating stuff.
I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make, I agree that a copy machine is not sentient. You can’t just decide that an inanimate object is “art” and then work backwards to say that the non-sentient tools that were used to create the work are the real artist.
You can’t take a thing, call it art, and then work backwards to calling the thing that made it an artist.
I mean, religion does, but I don’t believe them either. Eg; a rainbow.