This market resolves YES, if, in my sole opinion, it seems abundantly clear that support for "AI Art" (the cluster of techcnologies that includes Dall-E and Stable Diffusion and whatever evolves out of that - generative visual AI tech), becomes politically polarized along left/right lines.
It doesn't matter which side becomes "pro" AI Art or "anti" AI Art, just that each one picks a side and starts visibly yelling at the other, and that one's allegiance to left/right politics starts to drive people's opinions about whether they are pro or anti AI Art, and vice versa.
This is especially the case if you express an opinion about AI Art and people immediately assume you must belong to either the left/right based solely on that statement.
🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ157 | |
| 2 | Ṁ146 | |
| 3 | Ṁ62 | |
| 4 | Ṁ47 | |
| 5 | Ṁ45 |
In Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith, a case the SCOTUS did just yesterday, they decided on fair use transformation of images, a case that is likely to be a landmark for future questions on AI art. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the majority. Justice Elena Kagan was followed by Chief Justice John Roberts in a dissent.
Clearly, at least in terms of intelectual property, it isn't a partisan issue, at least for the Supreme Court Justices.
Before I bet no on this anymore I'm wondering what you mean by pro/anti AI art. I think being pro/anti art is very loosely left/right already. Will the right being entirely ambivalent about protecting human jobs count? Will the left wanting protections in place count? Or does each side need to be actively in favour of against the generation of AI art.