Raw LLM Responses

In college, we had a minor subject called "Art Appreciation", which basically taught us the basics of what makes art, digest art, and interpret art. I am taught that art can only be art if it has intention. For example, my teacher used the Thailand elephants who can paint and asked us if what they were doing is art. The answer is no. These elephants were trained to paint by the keepers there through forms of abuse (I suggest reading more into this if you want more specific information). For me, the "art" that these elephants were making are just like the "art" that these AI tools make. They're just trained to take colors and patterns and put them into a coherent arrangement that makes us perceive it as art. There was no intention put into these pieces, no inspiration. If all of the above that I jist discuss is complete bazinga (the elephant thing), I have another concept that supports the answer that AI art is not real art. If you are to look at art pieces made by other artists, meaning can be found within them. The artists who make these pieces are influenced by their day to day lives. The experiences and emotions they get fuel their drive to make a piece, take a brush and stroke colors onto a canvas to create an illustration. Even if the illustrations being made are just done because they were bored, they are backed up by their skill and talent of knowing how to properly paint and how to deliver a piece to an audience. In summary, AI art is not real art because it is not made with an intention. If you say there is intention, putting a string of words into a search bar will never be ever similar to the time, care, and effort that artists give to create a masterpiece.