Yes, but “doing” with AI is not actually doing it, is it? Yes, something gets done, but the end result was never the point of the demoscene. The finished product was merely the proof-of-work.
How far do you want to go? Obviously many demos were not written using ones and zeros and most likely the coders used compilers and assemblers to produce the binaries. They were also using linkers instead of merging the files by hand. Many learned the stuff using books, so it is just regurgitation of what they read in those books.
As with AI it's no different than delegating work to a group member. What counts is vision and execution.
What a weird argument, I can't believe people say that sort of thing and mean it sincerely. Compilers and assemblers and linkers and books are not the same as using AI. They're not just both tools and equivalent. One is using your brain power to gain knowledge and learn how things work. The other is asking someone to make the thing for you. But I don't think we'll agree on anything here.
Not sure. Corporations do it all the time. They create vision, hire employees to make it real and then it is the company's vision and execution. The demos are typically released under demoscene group name, not individuals who contributed.
I think many people are confused what's AI has given to them. An ability to be a boss. Something that used to be afforded to the rich. Now you can assemble a "team" and deliver whatever idea you have in mind without spending thousands or millions.
Yes, but “doing” with AI is not actually doing it, is it? Yes, something gets done, but the end result was never the point of the demoscene. The finished product was merely the proof-of-work.