David is one of the people I've discussed Dada and AI with who has an education in these topics. He's an old fashioned intellectual with acumen.
So I'll break down the disconnect, and start with founding principles.
A literal reading of Berlin, by Huelsenbeck, states clearly in unambiguous language that Dada is the product of "our epoch." A literal reading of this text would place Dada in a very narrow time period of just a few years after World War I, circa 1916-1924, and that's the standard understanding of Berlin.
However, to paraphrase, Huelsenbeck also said that artists are creatures of their epoch. They are incapable of seeing the world any other way. They are the voices of the times they live in.
Therefore, given that Dada represents life itself, but also nothing, both concepts that are not specific to any time period, we have to accept that Dada is a living document, and the signatories of Berlin knew they were doing that. Dada is full of paradoxes like this. That's part of what keeps it interesting.
Therefore, given that Berlin gives us the framework for understanding that Dada in the context of their epoch, and their epoch is then. It's not an unreasonable reading of Berlin to postulate that Now means now... at least when modern artists read it.
I'm using Berlin because it's a much better declaration of principles than the more widely known Tzara and Ball manifestos.
Anyway, I'll grant you that mine is a creative interpretation, but Dada has been translated for later epochs with similar reasoning before.
Still with me? Of course not, but let's keep going! This shit's fun!
The disagreement about the technology
I actually don't think David's argument is a bad one here. He's correct in principle, only wrong about the technology. We can loosely infer his argument as follows:
1. AI is derivative
2. Given the nature of AI training, an AI can't create anything new.
3. But, most importantly David sees AI as a tool of the ultra rich elites to eliminate labor and fuck workers that serves no other purpose.
Given this perspective, it's easy to see how he could see AI as a tool that breaks the ethos of Dada, invalidating the entire medium.
Break the narrow frame
Except, this point of view is intentionally defined narrowly because it breaks under scrutiny. So let's break it.
1 & 2. Human input, especially complex human input changes the output of AI. Humans can and do break the workflow all the time, even unintentionally. Assuming it's always "just a few words," is to believe the language processing system is a lot more sophisticated than it actually is. Actually working with the machine, especially at the advanced levels is a skill in and of itself.
3. While corporate use of AI is a huge problem that does affect the livelihoods of everyone, this is a problem of capitalism. AI can indeed be a tool of capitalism, but so can paint brushes. Hitler sold realism as the only valid artform, that doesn't mean all realists are white nationalists. Assumptions like that are utterly hyperbolic. But that is the state of things at the moment.
4. The existence of open source AI, especially around art makes AI a tool of the people. The concern over fake news and AI generated disinformation is a tacit acknowledgement of this reality. These tools are free, anyone can use or train them. Even google mentioned in passing that the ability to train has scaled from billion dollar data centers to "beefy laptops" and that's not an unfair observation.
Anyway, I see AI as empowerment and accessibility that makes new and existing artists more productive.
David sees AI as an oppressive force anti-human tool of capitalism.
Both things can be true at the same time.
There is no monolith, and the power dynamic here isn't black and white.
Welcome to the quantum state of diffusion Dada.