The latest dispatch from the vapid halls of Euronews Tech Talks has arrived, and it is every bit as nauseating as one would expect from a continent currently speed-running its own irrelevance. The topic? Art in the age of Artificial Intelligence. Or, to put it in terms the rest of us can understand: Can we find a way to make sure the mediocre human beings who currently produce 'content' can keep their copyright checks coming while the machines inevitably replace them with faster, cheaper, and equally uninspired algorithmic slop?

It is truly a marvel to watch the 'creative class'—that self-important demographic of turtleneck-wearing grifters who believe their specific arrangement of brushstrokes is a gift to the species—suddenly find themselves staring into the cold, digital eyes of their replacement. For decades, these people have hide behind the shield of 'humanity,' claiming that there is a 'spark' in their work that no machine could ever replicate. And yet, the moment a generative model spits out a JPEG that looks vaguely like a Renaissance painting or a corporate logo, they go into a full-scale existential meltdown. Why? Because deep down, in the black, shriveled hearts they claim are so full of 'soul,' they know the truth: their work was always derivative, predictable, and fundamentally mechanical.

On one side of this pathetic circus, we have the performative Left, currently busy weeping over the 'theft' of artistic labor. They cry about 'ownership' and 'exploitation' as if the history of art hasn't been one long, sordid tale of theft and imitation. These are the same people who champion 'open access' and the 'democratization of information' until it’s their own mediocre fan-art being used to train a Large Language Model. Then, suddenly, they become the most fervent proponents of draconian intellectual property laws, begging the state to protect their 'unique' style—a style that was, in reality, cobbled together from three Pinterest boards and a failed semester at an overpriced liberal arts college. Their hypocrisy is only matched by their fragility. They want to be 'revolutionary' until the revolution actually happens and it turns out they’re the ones being sent to the guillotine of obsolescence.

On the other side, we have the Silicon Valley vultures and their right-wing sycophants, the high priests of the 'Economy' who treat every technological advancement as a divine revelation. These people don’t care about art. They don’t even care about 'creative possibilities.' They care about 'efficiency,' which is a fancy word for 'firing everyone.' To the tech-bro, a painting is just data to be scraped, and a poem is just a sequence of tokens to be predicted. They talk about 'enhancing creativity' with the same sincerity a butcher talks about 'enhancing' a cow. They aren't building a tool for artists; they’re building a replacement for humans because humans are inconvenient. Humans require health insurance, vacations, and the occasional bit of dignity. A server rack in Oregon doesn’t ask for any of that. The right-wing response to the death of the human spirit is a shrug and a spreadsheet showing that the quarterly earnings of OpenAI have gone up. They are morons who think that because they can type a 'prompt' into a box, they are suddenly Leonardos. They aren't creators; they are just managers of a digital plagiarism machine.

And what of the Euronews 'experts' and their 'Tech Talks'? They sit in sterile rooms, clutching their ceramic mugs, wondering how to 'protect' artists while 'embracing' the future. It’s the kind of bland, bureaucratic fence-sitting that the European Union has turned into a high art form. They propose regulations and ethical frameworks, as if you can legislate the soul back into a world that has already decided it prefers the convenience of a machine. You can’t 'protect' an artist from a machine that can do their job better for the cost of a few kilowatt-hours. The very attempt is a confession of defeat. If human art were truly 'special,' we wouldn’t be having this conversation. We don't worry about AI replacing the sensation of being in love or the pain of a broken limb, because those things are actually real. But art? Art has become a commodity, a 'product,' a 'deliverable.' And machines are better at making products than people are.

So, by all means, let the lawyers argue over copyright. Let the artists post their 'No AI' badges on social media as if that will stop the tide. Let the tech moguls congratulate themselves on 'democratizing' an industry they are actually just liquidating. The reality is that we are witnessing the final, pathetic whimper of human pretension. We spent thousands of years pretending our creativity was a divine spark, only to find out it was just a pattern-recognition software that we didn’t know how to code. Now that we’ve coded it, the mirror is being held up to our faces, and we hate what we see. We aren't special; we’re just obsolete. And frankly, considering the 'art' we’ve been producing lately, the machines can have it. At least they don't pretend to have a soul while they’re overcharging you for a commission.