Comment by micromacrofoot

I think you're being too idealistic in these stances, it's just not how it's ever worked.

> And as I learn about such individuals taking credit for others work I have nothing but disgust for them

Historically, this wasn’t considered "taking credit." Leonardo da Vinci’s studio for example, involved apprentices completing significant portions of works under him. Buyers were aware they were commissioning a studio work and not a pair of hands. Koons or Hirst do it today, and it's no secret... it's how prolific artists have operated for centuries, they just can't keep up with the demand for their work solo.

The real soloists, like Van Gogh for example, were mostly obscure while they were alive... didn't really have any patrons, and didn't produce enough work to live off of.

To call the destitute failures "true artists" and someone like da Vinci "soulless" is pointless, because we don't decide these things, history does.

> Ronald Hare figured out how to mass produce penicillin and saved thousands of lives but no Nobel recognition for her triumph were those that got the prize failed.

I don't think this is true? Hare found success from trying to replicate Fleming's results. Fleming, Florey and Chain were jointly awarded the Nobel for the original discovery.

> I personal will never fund AI art / AI artist. There is no personality in such works, only slop

There will come a point in the near future where you won't be able to tell the difference. I lived through the same argument with Photoshop in photography.