Raw LLM Responses

I am an artist who fully disagrees with how most people are seeing AI. Super simply put for me: The more people who can make what they envision with out having to have access to time, resources or physical/mental capability to make it the longer way, the better. I understand the frustration and fear of losing jobs, same as any form of industrialization, but I see AI as the same as using a tablet and paint program instead of traditional or going even further back, using a special paint brush instead of only one or using pencil instead of pen to be able to erase. All of them are about cutting the work load down. Ai offers a means in which people with various limitations such as time, money and access can actually participate in something they love. When you can tell a prompt to a machine that does the labor part of the work for you, you are still the one with the imagination. If you lack skill and don't have time to hone it or access be it to materials or your physical body holds you back from injury, disease or disorder, well, that doesn't matter anymore. And AI will only get better. All the issues now of wonky eyes, lack of variety in styles and inability to do hands will be gone sooner than people think. Mocking AI generated things won't be a joke that sticks around for long. I look forward to a time when art doesn't have a price. When people make things because they like them, because they want to share a vision. I'm not for art being a job in the sense that I think art should be a right for everyone to participate in if they want to, not because they were lucky enough or had advantages to be able to make it into a career. But I also think living and what that in entails is in fact a right and not something you earn through luck and chance of nationality, age, financial opportunity etc., so I'm very outside the general conversation from the start. Democratizing art and making it accessible to everyone is a hard thing to convince me of as a bad thing. Especially given that I know people with various mental and physical limitations that made the skill that much harder to actively practice and the ability to utilize their imagination is limited by a lack of access to something that makes it into a decent output. Art shouldn't be for only some, it should be for all in my view. While I like the process of being able to slowly see my vision become closer to what I see in my head, I fully understand my physical, mental, time and monetary advantages allow me to do so while others can not or struggle more than myself. However AI isn't quite there yet for someone to say "Realistic wolf with blue fur and wings flying in a sunset with a half anime style" with out really knowing just how to actually use prompts. It's in this infant stage where it's still monetarily limited and mocked because it's changing the paradigm of what it means to be an artist. To put it another way, for the many who likely disagree, let me simply ask this. If you were guaranteed to make money, or better yet, you were guaranteed access to food, healthcare, entertainment etc. to live a decent quality of life and had plenty of free time to do art, traditional, tablet or AI prompts or all of the above, would you still do it? You don't make money off of it anymore, you do it because you like seeing the images or ideas in your head get on paper, screens or in figurines or become stories all their own. Would it matter how the thing is made if the end result is something you are happy with? Or is it the multi-year long ongoing process that you value regardless of if the end product is actually quality or not? And is something only quality if hard work was put into it? In which case, then we have a whole other discussion to talk about.