erin

Apologies! I couldn't see any pronouns from the image so defaulted to gender nonspecific they. Edited.

Regardless of your opinion on whether dude has become genderless or not (I also use dude for my friends of any gender), the word is a gendered term that has become ubiquitous. If someone doesn't want me to use "dude" referring to them, I won't. It's not good to assume, so until I know that someone doesn't mind, I'm not going to use gendered terms contrary to their gender. I wouldn't call a man "sis" or "girl" the same way I would women I'm friends with, unless I know that doesn't make them uncomfortable. I wouldn't call a woman "bro" or "guy" the same way I would men I'm friends with unless I checked. All of those terms are gender nonspecific for me, but they might make someone who doesn't have my lived experience uncomfortable.

The user's pronouns were in her username, OP's client just doesn't display additional lines.

I recommend sticking to gender nonspecific instead of defaulting to masculine.

It did. OP's client doesn't display it. It's pure miscommunication.

I believe they were being sarcastic.

I think the other comment covered it but I believe this demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of what makes photography such an amazing artform. People study and practice, for a long time, to take photos like this. This isn't a cell phone pointed in the general direction of a subject with conveniently optimal lighting for its tiny lens, though that could produce a good picture, this takes a great deal more experience, preparation, and creativity to frame and capture the subject in a certain way with extraordinary timing to get a dynamic, emotion-filled result.

I missed the original comment and this discussion now makes no sense. Why would you edit the content of your comment when you don't care about the points or the outrage?

Yes

Way to entirely miss the point. Are you suggesting that the simplest form of an artform isn't part of it? Apply that to literally every other artform. By your logic, jamming on basic chords on a ukulele in my living room isn't music, and a kids stick figure drawing of their family isn't art. You're so concerned about being "correct" that you missed being right. Go back and actually read my comment for its meaning, not the pedantry. If this is how you engage with media, I understand why you would compare AI art and photography.

Photography has far more depth, complexity, and creativity as an artform and comparing it to AI both misunderstands the process and does it a huge disservice. Even before lining up the shot, the photographer must choose the right focus length, exposure, and a number of other technical settings, then must choose a subject, perhaps modify the composition, and have the right timing.

Photography can be as simple as pointing a phone camera for a well timed moment or snapping a once in a lifetime shot with an expensive lens. AI art takes orders of magnitude less creativity or training to do well, because it's stealing the work of people that have already learned the composition techniques and have done the legwork, which is just being shoddily regurgitated by the plagiarism machine.