You seem to have forgotten what this conversation is about in your herculean effort to still feel right about saying something utterly ridiculous. You said this:

> You still aren't getting it. Movie directors aren't making these decisions either.

> What they are doing, is listening to market focus groups and checking off boxes based on the data from that.

> A market focus group driven decisions for a movie is just as much, if not more so, of an "algorithm" than when a literal computer makes the decision.

> Thats not art. Its the same as if a human manually did an algorithm by hand and used that to make a movie.

I responded as a professional in the field pointing out how ridiculous that take is, and then everything else that you said is putting words in my mouth based on opinions you assumed I had, but do not. I'm not arguing a "side" here-- I'm pointing out that something you said about practices in my field is entirely baseless. I have too much of a professional stake in this to pick a "side" because I actually have to deliver great work to spec, on time, and can't be bothered to field a whole bunch of people either with dunning-kruger confidence in their understanding technology or dunning-kruger confidence in understanding art having the nerve to be condescending while making entirely baseless, glib comments about what I do for a living, and acting like the righteousness of their cause makes it ok to be full of shit. If you want to be able to argue a "side" where you're just vaguely responsible for your grand idea and it doesn't really matter if you're full of it because nobody else there knows what they're talking about, either, then reddit is a tiny little ascii string down the street.

> Never in my entire life have I said it's not possible for the AI image generation process to include a lot of creative decisions. In fact, I've repeatedly said the opposite.

Hey well you said this. This is agreeing with what my point is, and I am glad we were able to clear up any possible misunderstandings, or I convinced you or similar.

As far as I am concerned you don't have any disagreements with my central point, which is good enough for me.

I am glad we cleared up the main miscommunication.

Cool. Nothing says intellectual confidence like refusing to acknowledge someone pointing out that you're spouting complete nonsense. Glad you were able to protect your ego by deciding I was talking about something that was more convenient for you. I sure hope you decide not to challenge your Dunning-Kruger confidence in backing up your ideas with "facts" and "information" based on the "content-aware fill" your brain uses in lieu of actual knowledge of movies as an artform and professional media production. I'm really happy that you think your "central point" means you can use naive assumptions lacking requisite information by orders of magnitude to condescendingly disparage real people's jobs and artistic practices. Surely, lacking knowledge of commercial art production doesn't negatively affect your ability to reason about the usage and effects of generative AI in commercial art production on both a practical and philosophical level. Surely. I hope you'll continue to pontificate about the finer points of this topic while refusing to consider dramatically more informed sources if they don't completely match your line of reasoning.