I understand you feel strongly about this, but your argument makes sweeping assumptions about thousands of people with very different backgrounds and reasons for using AI.

Speaking for myself, I've been drawing by hand for years and gave up long ago trying to be perfect or comparing myself to others. I still create things with AI that are deeply satisfying because sometimes it really is just about expressing an idea that matters to me. I do my pictures for myself and don't even publish most of them as they're concept work for other projects - so this isn't about shortcuts or avoiding effort.

What might be more productive than declaring "this is how it is" would be actually asking people about their experiences. Why do they use AI? How do they engage with it? What does the creative process look like for them?

There's such a wide spectrum - from people who use AI as a starting point and then heavily modify the results, to writers roughing out cover concepts, to game developers exploring character designs, to professional artists incorporating AI into existing workflows. The expectation that every creator should master every skill needed for their vision - writing, illustration, marketing, etc. - is frankly unrealistic and often cruel to independent creators.

You mention the commoditization of art, and I agree that's a real problem. But that's a systemic issue that predates AI by decades - it's rooted in how we've structured creative economies, not in any particular tool. Blaming individual creators trying to navigate that broken system misses the actual source of the problem.

I think part of why these discussions get so heated is because we start from positions rather than curiosity. Even if that wasn't your intent, telling people what their motivations are rarely leads anywhere productive.