There's a line between a cup and an ocean. I don't see what that has to do with anything.

I'm claiming that it's possible for an artist to use ai in the production of real art.

As an artist can use a guitar instead of their own mouth. But can an artist's art be the guitar playing itself... hm. A book in a library is art. But can choosing a book from a library be art? Ah, but what if it takes a long time. Wow, philosophy is interesting.

The argument here hinges on the definitions of inherently vague words. "Hm, you say a chair must have at least three legs and a seat, but this rock is a place people sit. Hm, what if the rock was sculpted, does it count then? Yes, yes, I am very smart"---This is boring and I don't care.

If the script for your movie wasn't written by people, then I don't care about it. It's trash. It's garbage. I would rather watch one made by people who care. I want people to talk to me with their art. When an AI becomes sentient enough to intend to make something meaningful, then we can revisit.

Oh right, but you mean the technical caveat for the use of AI tools.

Joel Haver uses an AI filter to do his rotoscoping. I like Joel Haver just fine.

The mere presence of an AI filter in his work is not what I consider artful, though.