There's a particular exhaustion we're experiencing. Every position on AIart seems defensible, yet none feel adequate. We inhabit a landscape of partialviews that never quite connect, where being partial doesn't mean beingwrong—just incomplete.This is our condition: holding space for perspectives we simultaneously reject. Caring for what we oppose. Not out of relativism, but because the critical frameworks we've inherited no longer map onto our reality.

Critical thinking emerged with modernity as its essential mechanism—the individual's capacity to imagine and demand difference. But what happens when criticism itself becomes insufficient? When the common ground shared by all political positions is the very modernity that produced our crisis? We've reached a moment where critical positions function as social currency rather than tools for understanding. They signal sophistication while preventing genuine thought about AI's implications. Each stance below represents an epistemological obstacle—a familiar refuge that keeps us fromc onfronting what's actually happening.This isn't about choosing the "correct" position. It's about recognizing how each one fails in its own particular way. They're all attempts to apply 20th-century critical tools to a 21st-century phenomenon that exceeds them. That exceed all of us in a sublime stance. What follows is a diagnostic inventory: not to mock these positions, but tounderstand why they leave us so profoundly unsatisfied. Perhaps by mapping our exhaustion, we can begin to imagine what comes after criticism.