Raw LLM Responses

I know it's technically true that great art could be created without the existence of other art pieces, but, lets face it, there was a huge difference in quality of art between the medieval period (when sharing art techniques and styles was relatively unheard of outside of your personal art tutor) and the renaissance (where every significant artist's works and ideas were being published and shared extensively throughout the art community). I'm not saying that every AI art generator is ethical or that I believe that AI art is ever of the same quality as personally created art, but, I am saying that claiming any art could exist without the input and contributions of a ton of additional works from a ton of previous artists. No art exists within a vacuum, AI or otherwise. To argue otherwise is folly. And claiming it's putting people out of jobs while not acknowledging the jobs it's creating in the market at the same time? That's got to be intentional, right? You can't say it's costing jobs when there's a larger increase in jobs in the field of AI than there's been a loss of jobs in the art industry. AI almost certainly has reduced jobs overall, but that's through replacing office management positions, not by replacing artists, at least in the majority of cases. This argument that it's costing art jobs is just not true in the larger scheme of things. In the context of ablism, I wonder how many making that point are actually expecting a disabled artist to write an essay lengthed prompt that includes precise descriptions of the composition, color, shading, brush techniques, perspective, etc. of their art piece? If that's what they're thinking of, sure, that's art. Describe every inch of the canvas verbally, and the computer renders it exactly as you describe it? That's fine, I can at least accept that's a reasonable argument, and that the end result would be legitimate art. But if they're saying a disabled artist saying "Make me a picture of a cat eating a pizza" is a replacement for understanding the subtleties of artistic explression? That's just stupid. Now, does AI need significantly more regulation and oversite? Yes. Can AI be harmful to communities is serious ways? Yes. Can people use AI tools to cause harm? Absolutely. But the arguments made here are weak, tangential at best to the actual issues, and propose that a tool, rather than the use and implementation of that tool, is the problem. If you want to actually help solve the problem, lets focus on actual issues that have actual solutions, rather than repeating a bunch of old arguments that frankly have demonstrated only their ability to make people that already dislike AI to be more angry over something out of their apparent control. No one wants to incite hopelessness.