I want to see the post without AI-assisted editing
I don’t care. I would expect an argument that goes “this post was made by AI, we don’t know exactly which points are AI-assisted and which aren’t, therefore we can ignore the content and demand the post unadulterated,” from another community, but not this one. Here we believe that argument screens off authority, so it shouldn’t matter whether an AI was involved in writing this piece or not, it shouldn’t even matter whether AI is making the arguments or the original author (although, unless you think OP is lying, we know the arguments come from OP).
It would be nice for LessWrong to be a welcoming place for non-native English speakers to voice their opinions, and this kind of hazing runs directly counter to that. If you don’t think the argument was written well, fine. Say that. Explain why. Help OP improve. Don’t demand that they write without an editor.
After World War I, the art world decided to no longer aim for beautiful and edifying representation and pursue other goals instead.
In the interwar period, what this goal should be was up in the air. The point of all the art movement and manifestos was to tell the world what their goals were, and to criticize the goals of others. Fine art exploded in diversity and transgression, even producing many ugly works.
After World War II, the movement system dissolved. Since then, the art world has above all prized “authenticity” and a sense of “newness.” Any type of skill or beauty doesn’t factor into the equation at all. You can criticize this. Happily, there are plenty of artists today who pursue goodness and beauty in their work, but the Fine Art World does not care about them. It cares about artists that are “marketable” in a certain way. Gossiaux fits the bill well.
This trend predates image models by decades. AFAIK image models have been basically ignored by the fine art world, though I’d be interested in learning if this isn’t the case.