General

AI is a tool. Technology has always been part of art — human intention, selection, and judgment are what turn results into art.

The debate about copyright should be considered separately: many problems stem less from the technology itself than from the financial interests of large multinational corporations shaping the rules to their advantage.

Im not talking about copy right. I honestly dont care at all about that. What i care about is a person having a complete understanding of their creation. Thats what that term means, though i should have explained.

True! But the point is that ai can expand on the idea as opposed to giving you an original one.

Tools don't determine status: new techniques (the camera, the synthesizer, digital editing tools) were first rejected and later accepted as legitimate artistic media. AI is the next such tool — it expands expressive possibilities.
Human agency remains central: people set goals, craft prompts, curate outputs, iterate, and bring intention. Those decisions shape meaning and aesthetics just as much as brushstrokes or mixer knobs.
Novelty and emergent behaviors: AI systems produce unexpected combinations, styles, and forms that can spark new artistic directions. Surprise and invention are core to art — AI can provide material artists use to explore new ideas.
Collaboration as a creative mode: art has many collaborative traditions (workshops, studios, bands). Human–AI collaboration is another form in which agency is distributed but art still emerges.
Audience reception matters: if viewers respond emotionally, intellectually, or aesthetically to an AI-assisted work, it functions as art — regardless of the technical details behind it.
Intentional framing and curation: how creators select, edit, sequence, and present AI outputs communicates meaning; curatorial acts are artistic decisions.
In short: AI supplies novel materials and capabilities; humans supply intent, selection, and framing — together they produce works that meet the usual criteria for art.

The human sets the intention: they determine what the image should be (theme, mood, purpose). Without that consciously set intention there is no directed creative act, only random output.

The human makes design decisions: prompt formulation, selecting and weighting variants, post‑processing (cropping, color correction, retouching), and combining multiple outputs — all creative interventions that shape the work.
The human bears conceptual responsibility: the idea behind the image — its meaning, narrative, or question — comes from the human. AI supplies material; the human organizes it and gives it significance.
The human controls the process: iterating, choosing between alternatives, and strategically using AI capabilities are decisions that determine the result.
Control over final presentation: how, where, and in what context the image is shown (title, series, exhibition, description) are artistic choices made by the human that shape reception.
Legal and practical precedent: in many jurisdictions and in practice, those who make creative choices and shape the work are considered the author/owner — AI is treated as a tool.

AI is material and craft; the idea, intention, and decisive acts of creation come from the human. Therefore the (ideational) ownership of the image's idea rests with the human.

Yeah adding to what fatgpt just said, ai can come up with unexpected combinations to create a unique piece of art which may not have been visualised by the artist and this is similar in a way to humans combining influnences to create a new art style.

Mayhaps. But having looked at AI art and literature, it's safe to say it's stifling creativity, not enhancing it.

Speaking for writers only, there are scores of free, non-AI programs and communities dedicated to this very thing. And they are not hard to find either. A quick web search will pull out numerous options, so you are spoiled for choice.

So when you say "AI can do _," it reads as someone who does not write and is not passionate about writing.

AI is a pale imitation of what already exists.

Premises: (a creativity requires years of practice and craft work; (b AI is only a pale imitation.
Contradiction check: (a implies that creativity rests on learnable skills/decisions. (b asserts that no tool can adequately reproduce those skills. Both together are consistent only if one additionally claims that those skills are in principle unlearnable/unteachable — an unjustified extra assumption.
Conclusion: It is logically permissible to pose the dichotomy: either creativity is mystical/unteachable (in which case evidence must be provided), or it consists of analyzable techniques (in which case tools like AI can at least assist those techniques).

Do you use AI to write your responses? The all come off as hella soulless.

Also, your premise is flawed. Generative AI stifles creativity. Think of it like a muscle. We all have different starting points, but if we want to improve our use of them, we have to train. AI is like having an exosuit.

Sure, an exosuit will enhance your strength without you needing to spend hours training. But there's a limit to what you can achieve with them. And if you compare what someone can do with an exosuit to what someone can do with training, it's a night-and-day difference. There's a flexibility and agility you can only get with training. Plus, exosuits end up stifling you by putting more strain on your body.

AI is essentially a machine that runs on mathematical probability. Creativity does not work like that. You cannot program generative AI to replicate the same spontaneity and logical leaps a brain (human or otherwise) can do. Maybe one day we will have the technology, but it won't be with generative AI. It will have to be something else entirely.

No. Generative AI cannot expand on anything. It can only provide an imitation of what it has been trained.

My apparent soullessness is a stylistic choice — I conduct this debate dispassionately and logically, without responding to provocation.

You are wrong on several points:

"Generative AI stifles creativity" is too broad. It removes routine work and can serve as a stimulus or collaborative partner in creative processes.
"AI = only probability, therefore not creative" ignores that new, surprising, and useful combinations can emerge from probabilities — practically creative.
Your exosuit metaphor is misleading. Better: AI is a powerful toolkit, not a permanent substitute for craft. Tools increase the range and speed of what you can build; they do not replace the skills needed to design and adapt complex, robust solutions.
AI does not automatically inhibit; effects depend on design, use, and user behavior.
Saying AI could never make abstract leaps is careless:
Models learn procedures, concepts, and causal patterns from large datasets and can generalize to new contexts (one-/few‑shot learning).
Hybrid approaches (neural nets + symbolic systems), self‑supervised learning, and reinforcement learning improve planning, abstraction, and reasoning‑like abilities.
In practice, systems already provide complex problem solving, creative strategy suggestions, and surprising insights — not identical to human intuition, but often functionally equivalent.
Claiming such leaps are fundamentally impossible ignores ongoing progress and is therefore an untenable absolute.
In short: your critique may apply in specific cases, but as a blanket judgment it is too narrow.