as I said earlier "6 years passed" since 2017 and the arrival of A.I. is causing authors (to say the least) real concern. the industry/ecosystem around X is enough to change to affect those associated with X.
you offered a "pet theory" (as you say) further up, but not much by way of proof that their fear is irrational.
i think we've reached in impasse here, the points are re-cycling.
> the industry/ecosystem around X is enough to change to affect those associated with X.
I think that you keep trying to generalize this argument because there's nothing that's strongly damning about Prosecraft. If these authors have a concern in regards to newer AI tech, they should address these concerns to services that actually implement that tech, not a tool that has peacefully existed for years and is guilty of nothing but being vaguely associated with these newer developments. It's like if Ford released a new car that could go 1000km/h, and then I, in protest of its obvious lack of safety, go to a museum and smash up a Model T. If that's not irrational, I don't know what would be.
> you offered a "pet theory" (as you say) further up, but not much by way of proof that their fear is irrational.
There's no concrete proof because I didn't find anything that I could even try to disprove. If you read through the anti-Prosecraft posts, they lack substance in bringing up how exactly this service can financially harm authors. The only complaint seems to be that the authors don't want it - even though the use of their works appears legal and is perfectly consistent with what many other services have done in the past. Thus, my only conclusion was that at least some of the hate stemmed from Prosecraft just being vaguely "something with AI".
you offered a "pet theory" (as you say) further up, but not much by way of proof that their fear is irrational.
i think we've reached in impasse here, the points are re-cycling.