>>725110160
>pre-digested data.
This phrase does not actually mean what you think it means. You've basically created a circular argument that posits that all data is created by humans, when in reality, humans process data that is created outside of themselves.

>>725110625
>What the fuck are you talking about, who are you talking to?
Originally I thought I was arguing with a person who didn't think too deeply about the things he was espousing, but since you're failing to follow the conversation between us I am starting to reevaluate that presupposition. You stated:
>It's predigested data that has to have passed through another human for it to even be in the data set
And i asked if your premise was even true, posing a hypothetical situation in which a bot scrapes a thread that was created by a bot. You have not responded to my hypothetical yet. That's the current phase of that discussion, not whatever you're talking about with memes.
>No amount of passing these memes through rounds of AI will change its fundamental nature.
What you are describing is a faith, which is fundamentally separate from logic or reason.
>Generic, formulaic, passe, hacky, un original, this is how we refer to shit art.
Sure, but since that applies to bother human art and machine art, what is the actual difference between human and machine art?