I didn't have time to read all the comments but here is Claude's summary for those interested:

```

1. "Good AI work exists when humans stay involved"

Quality AI videos exist but require human editing, scripting, acting - not letting AI do 99% of the work. Examples: NeuralViz, Igorrr's music videos.

2. "AI removes creativity, doesn't enable it"

AI handles creative decisions (color grading, cuts, tone) that were previously human craft. This strips creativity from the process rather than democratizing it.

3. "Execution is the creativity"

Ideas are worthless - execution is what matters. AI removes the execution process, which is where real creative work happens. "Using AI is like using an aimbot for music."

4. "AI enables creative expression for those locked out"

Counter-position: High-concept filmmaking was previously only for the privileged. AI lets people with vision but without technical skills/money/connections realize their ideas.

5. "Race to the bottom / slop flood"

AI's main "strength" is cranking out content at scale, flooding platforms with low-quality material faster than humans can filter. The internet is being overrun with unlabeled AI garbage.

6. "Trust erosion is the real harm"

Even "harmless" AI videos contribute to a world where nothing visual can be trusted. This affects everyone regardless of whether they consume AI content directly.

7. "Theft at scale"

Models exist only because of mass ingestion of creative work without consent. Using AI tools participates in this regardless of output quality.

8. "Platforms will adapt / people will learn"

Optimistic view: Recommendation algorithms will filter slop, people will recognize AI aesthetic as they did MS Paint edits, and good content will surface.

```

Personal take: all these points are true/valid/correct/accurate.

Controversial take: regardless, cat's outta the bag now and there's little we can do to stop it.