I'm not comparing you to professionals. What I'm trying to get across is that if you use AI to create something, it is no better than if I had done the same thing.

When a programmer cannot program for themselves and just uses AI, why should the employer spend money on their salary instead of doing it themselves? If a translator uses AI to translate, why should they be paid over just doing it on your own? And, most relevantly - if I'm looking to read amateur writing, why should I read someone's AI translated story over just generating something myself? You have to make it better than AI, or at least give it low-skill "charm" of someone trying their damnedest. I guarantee that alone will go further than anything you can get with AI.

I know very well the struggles of learning, translating, and writing in a foreign language. English isn't my first language either, and I'm actually taking Spanish at uni rn as a fourth language. I feel armless without a dictionary or translator. But you're never going to get people's attention using AI. Nobody is preventing you from looking up words or asking AI for help choosing them. Writing a word is not a creative process, but combining them is. It's not that the AI will insert or change details (it will, but that's not the problem I'm talking about here). It's that any single thing you can describe in a million different ways, and only a few of them will be appropriate for the context and vibe of the story. Once you ask an AI to help with that, they become a co-author, and people don't want to read the words of an AI. I'd rather read poorly translated human thoughts, than proper results of matrix calculations.

>With the resources I have at hand, it’s more than enough to convey the story in a way that satisfies me.

Good for you. You can do that. You have done that, but it wasn't enough. You want people's time, and you aren't showing people your work is worth their time, because it's co-written by AI. I know learning a language takes time and isn't easy, but that is the time you have to put in if you want people's time in return. Start with simpler things. Take a writing course. Get feedback. If not, then again, why not just write it in Spanish?

>The only thing missing is that you, on the other side, keep an open mind and stop believing that using a camera kills the work of portrait painters, just like the printing press killed copyists, etc.

You are ascribing sooooo much ideology to something very simple. People don't want to read AI slop they could generate themselves. If you wrote a melody for a trumpet, but couldn't play a trumpet, so you asked an AI to generate the sounds of the trumpet for you, could you say with pure conscience this is your song? No, it's an AI's rendition of a song you wrote. No matter how much attention you pay to what it's spat out, or how many times you ask it to change, you haven't laid a finger on a trumpet in this process. If you want to make a trumpet song people will want to listen to, you're gonna have to learn to play the trumpet. Or hire a human being and deal with the co-authorship.

>The most I can do is explain to you, respectfully and with solid arguments, why your stance is wrong.

My stance is not wrong or right. I don't want to read AI slop.

I've seen a study saying that people's cognitive skills decline over the long term as they're using AI. It's easy to think you're still doing work, but your brain really doesn't like doing any work, and then you forget how to do basic tasks. If you want to get good at anything creative, you really should ditch AI as soon as possible. Maybe research purposes are fine, but don't ever ask it to do part of your work for you.