Why does this mean AI-aided color correction, 25fps to 30fps, or upscaling 480p to 1080p should be treated the same?
Using AI to make someone say something different (even if only for a small part of the video) is very clearly different, that's deception.
Why does AI editing 3 seconds of audio from a president's speech be treated different from when a human does it without AI?
It sounds like your argument is about deceptive editing. Why not just require labelling deceptive editing? That way there can be place for comedy channels to do so for comedic purpose (rather than blanket ban on deceptive edits).
Almost any photograph taken with a mobile phone is AI edited because phones come with AI to enhance photo quality (e.g. Deep Fusion, Smart HDR), should any photo taken with a mobile camera be labelled AI now?
Is human-scripted art (e.g. https://nannou.cc/) art? Is music programmed to play on an orchestrion art? Is the music produced using a modular synth setup art?
If your answer to any of these questions is "yes", and your answer to "can AI create art" is no, then there is a difference between AI doing it and a script.
That said the discussion around "human" art and "AI" art often lacks nuance, and I believe there's lots of space to explore art that uses AI. Humans produce a lot of crappy art, this crappy art requires humans to invest time and effort. With AI it is possible for humans to produce lots of crappy art without investing time and effort, so an deluge of crappy AI art follows.
If I use AI to strip backgrounds instead of traditional greenscreen methods, is the end result "crappy AI art"? I'd hope no one sets those standards. I'd hope my videos would be judged as "crappy human art" since I still did the camera work the acting and the editing. If I use AI for visual effects in my video because I don't have visual effect training and don't have money to hire someone with experience (I don't make money from my occasional fun video projects), does that make it "crappy AI art"? I don't believe so. But somewhere between there and the content farm AI slop filling the Youtube servers there is a point where it becomes "crappy AI art" and I can't tell you where that point is because I'm still trying to figure it out.
I have several friends who have squatted abandoned buildings in Europe. I have other friends who live in otherwise abandoned buildings under agreement with the owner to prevent squatters breaking in to the building. When I moved into my house several years back it looked abandoned (because it had been before buying it), and when I invited friends over for the first time some assumed I was squatting there upon arrival. Squatting is really not an unusual thing. Squatters aren't squatting in order to claim ownership. Often they're students looking for a cheap place to stay.
It sounds like your argument is about deceptive editing. Why not just require labelling deceptive editing? That way there can be place for comedy channels to do so for comedic purpose (rather than blanket ban on deceptive edits).
Almost any photograph taken with a mobile phone is AI edited because phones come with AI to enhance photo quality (e.g. Deep Fusion, Smart HDR), should any photo taken with a mobile camera be labelled AI now?