Writing was a remix of pictorial representation, which was a remix of the way things like ox heads, flowing water, and birds look.
> Writing was a remix of pictorial representation, which was a remix of the way things like ox heads, flowing water, and birds look.
That's the kind of absurd reasoning when you take some proposition and try to defend it to the death even though its wrong.
But the point is that human creations are always based on something else, so pointing out that AI is basing its output on a database of previous work does not necessarily mean that it is not creating new art, or being creative, or however else you want to put it.
It's like the ridiculous lawsuits that claim a song is stolen because it uses the same chord progression as an older song, where there are almost always centuries-old examples of that same progression from Beethoven et al.
Your point seems to be that the reasoning is absurd because it's defending an incorrect premise, and the premise is obviously wrong because the reasoning is absurd, so I'm not you'll want to know what the people on the other side of this discussion think.