Raw LLM Responses

The biggest thing that bothers me about this AI issue is that from a philosophical standpoint, if people are willing to give up art, one of the core human traits, to machines then what hope is there for humanity to not give up some of its other core traits, if not all of them? and what's left of humanity at that point? On a less apocalyptic note, some personal experience I had that relates to a major point in the video- I'm an artist and a software engineer, and I argued another software engineer friend that is not an artist several times over this topic. The biggest point for me is that they were labeling AI as a tool for creation, and similarly to what you expressed in this video I tried explaining how 'intentionality' is what makes AI different than any other tool. I personally referred to it as 'agency' or in this case lack there of, as I looked at it from a less 'philosophical' point of view, but rather from the point of a technical definition of what is an 'artist' and the act of 'creation'. Since my friend argued that a person that uses AI to generate images is to be called an AI artist, I had to stand on that 'an artist is an agent that creates art' and by that definition it can be said that if something is created without a person's agency, then it is not created by them, meaning that a person that gives some instructions and directions to someone/something else to create it for them is not an artist. If that were the case, a person commissioning an artwork (with detailed instructions let's say) would also be considered an artist, and I don't think anyone argues that. (This leads to the question of whether directors are considered 'artists', but that's a whole other conversation for another time)