What I am still trying to tell you is this: you need better arguments. The one you brought was weak and you undermined it. You made your anti-ai argument about low effort while talking at the same time of the little effort you yourself used. You gave advice but did not use your own advice. Would you listen to someone preaching water instead of cola, if they brag about their private homebrew lemonade party?
If you use arguments that depend on opinion, you can only convince people that already share your opinion. If you cite ai as low effort to someone that spent days to create a few images that barely fit the requirement for a project, your claim does not fit their experience. And if you claim low effort to ai users that do hand edit their works, you also fail here. You are just accusing them of lazyness.
Your refusal of my points boils down to me not bolstering them with citations? Then were is your citation that ai usage equals low effort while at the same time downloading free images would not be low effort?
Where is your citation that all ai training data is stolen? Oh, wait you did cite articles. Let's see. The guardian thing is an opinion piece. The only thing this proves is that the author of the article has an opinion. So to refute my arguments you cite an opinion? Come on.
And you cite a document about a legal dispute against one specific ai model, in response to my claim that it is not generally accepted that ai art is stolen. I argued if this were true, we would see consequences of that, like a legal ban on ai.
Please read the conclusion of that document you cited. The legal claims were dismissed, except for a minor claim. And that involves basically recreating something where someone else has rights to it. And that is trivially true, as it would also not be legal do this with pen and paper.
The plea of Aleks above was better. The product will be seen as lesser
Also your own plea just now was good: to spot Ai useage and have a negative reaction
It explains some reasons behind: Avoid AI. People do not like it.
You could even argue that some people think it is stolen, and therefore do not like it. But do not try to argue it is stolen. Because that ain't true in a legal sense. If potential ai users fact check this, they might just decide to use ai, since the ai opponent used a faulty argument.
Fact checking if people dislike ai yields this: https://quanticfoundry.com/2025/12/18/gen-ai/ 62% very negative. Only 7% positive.