Comment by avereveard
7 hours ago
this is all circular, with the why being the claim. I still see no why, just phrased slightly differently
7 hours ago
this is all circular, with the why being the claim. I still see no why, just phrased slightly differently
The "phrased slightly differently" is the why. It's not circular, it's one step further, e.g. "why would it spoil it for small time artists" "because it will drawn the audience with slop".
You just keep questioning at the next level, like a small kid asking "any why would it do X", "because Y", "and why would it do Y". Ultimately you'll reach asking why the Big Bang happened or something.
What you're ask for seems to be "ultimate causual mechanism". That's not how arguments work, this isn't Physics. The reader needs to apply their thinking to the implications of extra slop production, for example.
If they don't believe that AI will produce extra slop, I don't know what to tell them.