Raw LLM Responses

Art takes skill, A.I. doesn't do that. Also, its been ruled in a few countries that any image done by A.I. cannot be copyrighted as it is not done by a human. Another way to explain the controversy is with art history. An A.I. physically cannot recreate anything, it will always be pixels. This means as many times it could be fed images of Barnett Newman's works, such as "Who is Afraid of Red, Yellow & Blue #3" it cannot make it, the piece may seem simple in design of just three colors but it was the technique that made it unique. Sadly the original was destroyed, its canvas slashed. Most write off this painting as simple as its 3 paints, two thin lines with massive block of red on this massive canvas. It should have been easy to restore, right? But it wasn't, they could not reproduce the same method. The repairs were off despite it being one color. An A.I. could make its own version, but it cannot reproduce a true Newman. But there is another aspect of the argument that scares me, we see this in the case of modern art. Art will always be subjective, but we have people who believe it has to fit into a cultural narrative - you'll find most of these people are riding a line or are fascists, Newman's art was constantly attacked by this sort. In defining what A.I. art is, I am hoping this not going to lead to a double down against modern art. A.I. can be subject but it feels off like the repairs to Newman's pieces. Sure, it may seem easy to copy but will never be able to reproduce the subtle parts and limited to only what it has been taught. We, humans, are complex creatures.