that an artistic tool is not strictly necessary for every disabled artist does not mean that it is not legitimately useful to some disabled artists -- but that point is hardly worth arguing, as an artistic tool does not need to be a disability aid in the first place for its use to be legitimate.

i know of at least one artist i followed back on twitter who had chronic pain in their hands and attested that they did not have any method for realizing their artistic vision until AI art came along

if any abled people out there would like me to track down who that was so you can go condescendingly inform them of what the acceptable way to work with their particular situation was, please let me know so that i can call you a dickhead

pick a tool -- wheelchairs, corrective lenses, whatever -- you will find people who could use it but thrive without it

to use those people as a rhetorical cudgel against the claim that those tools can be massively helpful for people is depraved
https://bsky.app/profile/ponder.ooo/post/3kaic636g5x2e

it would be very rhetorically convenient for those who aim to argue that the tool is Evil if it was not legitimately useful -- but the reality of the situation does not depend on what's convenient for you.

why pull this bullshit instead of arguing on the basis of the actual reasons you oppose ai?

the answer to that rhetorical question is: to cede that these tools can be useful forces you to acknowledge that there is actually some discussion to be had here, that just insulting & shouting down everyone who disagrees with your hardline knee-jerk ban-it-all stance is not sufficient

https://bsky.app/profile/ponder.ooo/post/3kaieawjlif27

AI helping artists who can't use their …