I do not recognise the question as valid. If a table is made by a machine, or an identical table is gnawed into shape be a beaver, are there intrinsic difference in what that table does for its user? Those who care about intangibles would say not: the beaver gnawed piece is "organic" and has "soul". A logical positivist would say, with justification, that that is fluff, that it is all self delusion and that the table it is what it does and that is why a given lump of matter is called a table in the first place. Molecules is molecules, as Daffy Duck would undoubtedly have said.
how to cope with out skill is what you showed me. Its 100% a valid question that you are actively choosing not to recognize/acknowledge.
First your analogy fro a table is 100% flawed cause it has no base, and is using fallacy to attempt to prove a wrong point.
Second: a logical person wouldn't question the table if what you said actually made any sense. A logical person would question how a beaver made a table in the first place. (i can tell english writing and comprehensive writing isn't your strong suit so this point is making fun of your logic fyi)
Third and better analogy would be if you said, a machine vs a human, and even in this example the human still wins cause a machine will spit out an exact replica over and over making it less unique and personal, but if a human made it each table, it would have some amount of differences that makes each one unique in its own way cause humans, by hand, cant perfectly recreate something over and over.
Like...you couldn't even write out a proper analogy on your own... bro go to school, take writing classes or something. Now i know you're saying, then how does mine make any sense or is "Valid" We'll you see, sense i have to directly explain it to you, if i gave you carpenter tools....can you do carpentry...no you can't. You said "tools are tools" Yes tools...to be used to better enhance and provide to ones skills. Tell me what skills do you use AI "tools" for in this "game" cause you didnt do the art...thats 100% AI so thats not using any skill set...and in this alone you've shown your own human lack of writing and comprehension skills. so where does that leave the story writing....AI...Like what did you do?
and you couldn't answer simple questions and choose not to acknowledge them cause you know im right. you are choosing to run away cause again im right. you say you do not wish to be rude but ive read your other comments to other ppl calling out your bs ai scam and how you were absolutely dogging on them, but now you choose to not to be rude.
at this point im about 60-70% sure your comments are either bots, or gpt'd after a certain point since you can be bothered with acknowledging your self.
Your own cultures philosophical heritage??? You mean basic understandings of writing??? the thing you personal lack in??? You were the one who used the gedanken experiment wrong in the first place, if you are going to pose a theory make sure it actually make sense and not just put two very uncommon ideas together, thats when you get:
Fallacies: a mistaken belief, especially one based on unsound argument.
Your explanation follows these fallacies, and your logic towards ai follows mostly the first.
