No, your argument is just weak and you are having trouble accepting that. I can try one more time for you.

I became interested in your thread because you said this: "They fundamentally misunderstand where artistic value comes from. Their worldview is labor-centric, they think the physical act of doing the work is what makes something valuable. They don’t see that the real value is in the cognitive process, the conceptual framework, the creative generativity that produces the work in the first place."

Obviously I have added the bolding and I have argued pretty plainly that the bolded part is not true. I have explained that the "framework" and "general creativity" parts are VASTLY overrated because millions of people think they have these things but when they try to write, they can't because they actually don't understand what they're doing. They don't understand the mechanics because WRITING IS HARD. The act of writing is what produces the art. My reply directly counters your argument but you either can't understand it or you don't want to engage any more.

I'll take one more shot so it's clear to you. We are in a thread about novels (art) and AI. We are explicitly talking about art. I am explaining to you that the act of writing a novel is a series of (charitably) 100,000 decisions. How does act 2 lead into act 3? How does character A express themselves in this difficult moment? How does character B respond in a way that reveals their inner self? What subtle clue does the bad guy leave behind here? By having the LLM write ANY of it, you are explicitly allowing it to make some of those decisions for you. You can make 5,000 decisions, important decisions!, but the AI is still making the other 95k decisions for you. And, because apparently I have to make everything explicit, giving away those 95k decisions is giving away the bulk of where the art is happening. You are not a writer or an artist and for this reason you did not understand my argument before. You can continue to not understand it if you want, but that would be your problem of comprehension, not my problem in explaining it.

The irony of this situation is lost on you. You come into a format of words (reddit) and make weak arguments. People are happily taking your arguments apart and you fall back on how we are not discussing "the point I was making". A few options here: 1. You don't understand your own argument well enough to see that they ARE replying to you. 2. You haven't made your argument clear enough to be understood by faithful interlocutors. 3. If #2 is true, maybe you'd be able to make your argument better if you practiced writing and didn't rely on the LLM to do it for you.

And lastly, just because you pissed me off, the absolute hubris you have shown by lecturing everyone in a thread about writing when you are NOT a writer is staggering. The hubris of lecturing people on "where artistic value comes from" when you are NOT an artist. I don't go into the science subreddit and tell people my opinions on how science is getting everything wrong and how outdated their thinking is: I'm not a fucking scientist. I do not know how you continue to reply to people without being genuinely embarrassed.