Raw LLM Responses

The split fiction example doesn't really work, you basically just took a very valid point that questions the difference between human inspiration and machine training, and said "well this game disagrees", you don't provide any reason why this matters, rather you move onto your childhood sub-concious inspiration, to which, I also don't really understand what difference that makes. You're just basically saying it's possible to directly copy with AI if you ask it to, but what else would you expect from something that is supposed to be able to visualise anything? It only copies if you ask it to, how does that differ from a human copying something intentionally? And where AI is used artistically, what exactly is stopping those artists from using THEIR own subconcious experiences in their prompts? You end this section on a better point to be honest, yes there's obscurity in 'which inspiration came from where', but you JUST made a point to credit human subconcious inspiration, which could just as easily equate to an artist not knowing the origins of their own art style. So at the end of the day humans and AI are both fallible to the same mistakes. And AI could even be used to retrieve similar human art in both cases, so it really doesn't have to be an issue. Anyway I just wrote all that because I find this one facet of AI art interesting, and haven't really heard a good argument against it. I wish there was something magic in our brains that made us different to computers, but that gap is closing, and pandora's box has already been opened.