Raw LLM Responses

The most reasonable critique of AI art from a processional perspective. Not sure this holds up from a Aestheticist perspective, but I appreciate it isn't just the "Skynet bad." ramblings I often hear. This criticism doesn't bother me as much, because while I find the process interesting, the aesthetics, form, structure, are also lines of engagement I find compelling in isolation. But I still wouldn't consider that "art" due to my metaphysics for the same reason I wouldn't consider a spiderweb art. There's no intentionality behind the cultivation of skill. Literally no soul, let alone a rational one. On the otherhand, I do consider the AI itself to be a work of art, even if what it produces isn't. I do have two exceptions though: AI-cooperative art, where the AI generates assets for a human being to then manipulate to create something distinct from what the AI itself made. Shadiversity talks about this in his defense of AI Art video [which I am certain most artists upset with him about did not actually bother to watch, cause they can't seem to accurately summarize his most basic position]. There is intentionality and cultivated skill in the use of photoshop, illustrator, and other processes, programs and techniques, so I think it qualifies as art, even if it is basically collages or heavily referenced material. The other is a wetware lovelace AI, which by definition would have a soul and capacity for creativity, could also produce real art, so long as it has a rational soul. I hope we don't build such a thing, for ethical reasons, but that would also be a loophole for AI art to be real art.