Raw LLM Responses

An emotional response is Subjective by its very Nature, and I think it's naive to start arguing that we can apply the reaction to a Thing to the Thing itself, in this case we can't use the fact that some people interpret the random splotches as Art, to mean we should start further tying up the experience of Art in our Words, which ultimately are a result of trying to express Subjective Experience of Objects directly apprehended by Conscious Subjects. So, we acknowledge in this statement that Language is a sort of pseudo-geist or impression of Conscious Experience in relation to a specific cultural symbology. To put it this way I think Art transcends Language, as Langauge serves as an obfuscation of the Truth of the experience of an Object, True Art is related to an Experience of a thing, like say pain, and the transcendence of pain into Art can happen by way of language, but how would one argue that a statement on the direct experience of pain from a Language model actually says anything about the direct experience of pain, when Language itself has already done that, and Art is the next step in that process? Which is to say that, LLM's are already an abstraction from Conscious Experience in the form simulated thought, but not conscious understanding of the cultural and existential understanding of what Language seeks to illuminate about the Human Experience