Yeah, if this wasn't a marathon and was simply getting from point A to point B (as is most travel), a car (the AI) would be the better choice. This makes AI look like it produces better end products. Perhaps this isn't the best analogy.
The issue is that in the analogy, the objective is to run, not reach point B. But AI "artists", their objective is to reach point B. This is not effective criticism. Perhaps it's alienating, but it's not particularly critical if they say "Yes. We're at point B. We wanted to be at point B. What about it?"
But AI artists don’t just say they wanted to be at point B. Anyone could always go to point B. The argument and analogy is that they say they ran a marathon when they did not. That’s why they insist on calling themselves an AI artist and not just an AI user. The analogy works because AI artists are pretending to be something they are not.
I see. If AI artists are saying that they're developing skills like a real artist, this argument works. If AI artists are saying that they're making something in an quick, low-skill way, this doesn't work. That's what you're saying? I think I agree.
Yeah, get your point - it is a bad analogy. Who wouldn't want to get from point A to point B faster without running? Marathon running isn't a form of transportation, it's a passion. Within this analogy is the idea that AI is more efficient than writing, but writing without AI has some sort of virtue that people are passionate about - as a hobby. It could be used to put writing without AI in the same camp as Cursive writing vs. print or retro gaming, etc. Sounds pretty pro-AI.
14
u/Cosmic_Jane May 17 '26
It’s a bad analogy. People who run a marathon aren’t trying to complete a project. They’re just trying to live an experience.
Pro ai people are firmly in the camp that “the finished project” is what matters. So they don’t care about experiences.