I apologize for bringing your logical fallacies to light. I realize pointing them out is intellectually lazy, but unfortunately it seems necessary when they make up the basis of the rebuttal.

You’re conflating the effort required to manufacture an image with the effort involved in creating the joke. The context of the joke isn’t who manufactured the image; it’s who made the joke. The AI didn’t independently decide that Netanyahu, Trump, and Ed Sheeran standing on a stage would be funny. A person came up with that concept and used AI as the tool to produce it.

You could have made the same image in Paint.NET in 20 minutes. Great. That doesn’t demonstrate that the joke is lazy, and it certainly doesn’t demonstrate that it’s unfunny. It demonstrates that you prefer a different method of producing the image.

And “lazy” isn’t a synonym for “unfunny.” If I spend twenty hours painstakingly creating the exact same image in Photoshop, the joke doesn’t magically become funnier because I invested more labor into manufacturing the pixels.

If you don’t find the joke funny, that’s perfectly fine. But that’s a subjective reaction, not an argument. If your argument is that the joke itself is lazy, then explain why the idea is lazy. The fact that the production of the image was automated doesn’t establish that.

For the record, your rebuttal relies on several logical fallacies. The “you criticize AI while using the internet” comparison is a false analogy because my point was about the irony of criticizing the energy consumption of one internet-based activity while participating in another, not that you are somehow forbidden from criticizing technology you use. Your claim that the image is lazy because it was AI-generated is essentially circular reasoning because you are using the use of AI as both the evidence and the conclusion that the work was lazy. And saying that it could have been made in Paint.NET in 20 minutes is a non sequitur: the amount of effort required to produce an image does not establish whether the underlying joke is funny or whether the person who conceived it was creative. Those arguments don’t establish your conclusion; they simply assert it from different directions.