You have still missed the point of the false equivalence. A translation is based on an actual piece of writing by a person (if not AI generated) who had a journey. An AI generated image is not the same.
For example, if you grab a pen and paper and draw some Manga from your own hand and mind, how close do you get to the images you generated on your blog?
As I told you there is no false equivalence.
The person who has used MTL has no skill at translation, or do you think they could get close to the translation the machine spit out? If they used their own hand and mind?
And those images on my blog are still based on a piece of writing from a person. ie the prompt and all the other options like CFG Scale etc.
And I have proven that your claim that this is false equivalency is not true multiple times. What you are doing is just proof by assertion and if we are not going to argue in good faith there is nothing more to add.
No - you haven't proven anything. And, by the lack of answering the actual question I asked, I will assume you can't draw.
Yeah, I can't draw what about it?
And people who use MTLs can't translate.
Please translate your sentence to Japanese, just using your hands and mind. Can you do it?
I assume you can't.
I've proven many times that translation is equivalent to art. It requires skill, experience and this "Journey" you are so fond of. Disproving your false equivalence argument.
Or do you think MTLs don't mimic translation skills? Or do you think that translations don't require skill? Or do you think translations don't require experience?
As I said since you can't argue in good faith and can't accept that your arguments have failed miserably. There is nothing more to add.
You are conflating arguments.
Holy crap that was a stubborn stance.
Well, I have to be. He doesn't argue in good faith, hence I had to make the same arguments in different ways that had to conform to his specific points time and time again.
I am not conflating arguments. My argument from the start was MTLs were equivalent to AI art generation. Which you argued was a false equivalence, which I proved they were not.
You proved nothing. They are different animals completely. You saying they are not, does not constitute evidence.