"Creating ai images yourself is not as easy as it sounds. And it can be a lot more work than just browsing for free human made images"
Yet you don't back up your own claim, you just say it does.
"Also, you could have hand edit your ai images."
Once again you never claimed you did.
You claim you advocate for better arguments but you're doing what you're claiming I'm doing.
"If you can shrug off ai usage as low effort, so can other people shrug off your browsing for the right image as low effort. How would they know that you did not just pick the first result. And if you think selecting the right images is creative input, well, crafting a prompt and selecting the right results is a similar level of input."
Biggest difference is people are more likely to spot Ai useage and have a negative reaction compared to an image that looks like it's low effort but real/from public domain. AI images all have that "feel" that gives off it's Ai, the errors in the image, the classic warm hue, missing limbs/extra limbs, background items that don't seem to make sense such as a distorted coffee mug etc. When a person looks at images from the public domain, they'll see no traces of Ai and care less about the effort behind it all. Sure it's subject to the views of each person as each person sees things differently but for the most art, a lot of people don't assume the image they are seeing is real/hand made.
"In your reply just now you mentioned the stolen art argument. It's a blanket exaggeration and technically not correct."
Yet you don't back up your claims like I didn't.
"The training data could have been 100% consented or public domain. Especially for audio you will even find things that were trained with specifically created training material. This stolen art argument is short sighted and generalizes too much"
Yet again you don't back up your claims, "could have" how do you know it could? How do you know it wasn't?
It's one thing to break down my own opinions and arguments, but you can't pick a part my arguments and pointout their flaws while also making arguments that are flawed just like my own, the very same thing you're pointing out that's flawed.
"So my point here is: you want strong arguments against ai usage. Not weak arguments that might crumble under scrutiny or depend on personal opinion."
Just like how you're using weak arguments (such as you claiming training data 'could' have been consented without backing this claim up) or based on personal opinion (such as That ai usage is low effort depends highly on the developer. You do not know how lazy they were.) is a personal opinion.
Lastly,
"That ai usage is low effort depends highly on the developer. You do not know how lazy they were. "
WRONG. Laziness/low effort is highly dependent on how the outside views you and your work. If you think you are not lazy but everyone thinks you are, the likely hood of you being right is fairly low.. It's one thing not to let others sway your thoughts, but if one always thinks "My opinion/how I do things is always right and everyone else is always wrong" is a fairly toxic way of thinking.
"That art is stolen is a subjective opinion. If it were objective, ai would be outlawed and we would not have such discussions."
It's no an opinion, it's a fact that has been covered by media. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2026/apr/12/is-ai-the-greatest-art-heist-in-hi... https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Getty-Images-v-Stability-AI....
Also there is a website called "Seaartai" that has a ton of free use ai models that has a ton of image models that were used to train on a lot of artist's art styles.
You respond to my reply to OP trying to pick a part my arguments saying they're weak and have personal opinions.. but then you try to correct me with said weak arguments and person opinions.. surely you see the irony right?
Anyways, It's clear this bickering isn't providing any useful point at all and I'll end it right here.