Raw LLM Responses

I'm sorry but this is objectively poorly argued. You STATE that the human element is what makes art enjoyable... sure. But it doesn't mean that art that is made by AI isn't enjoyable at all, nor that in most cases we value art because of the artist. No, as the XQC guy said, most people enjoy looking at pretty things, and nothing more. This isn't supposed to be some anti-intellectual take, but most people don't care for the maker as long as it simply looks pretty. Especially since your examples of child drawn art or friend made art explicitly involve a personal relationship which distorts the objective evaluation (not as it not being as objective would make it less valid). Another problem I find is that you pull up some nobody on twitter, who made an objectively awful take, and use him to strawman the entire "pro AI" side. If it isn't obvious, I think that guy is stupid and studio Ghibly art is objectively beautiful and fantastic, that's why people imitate it or use AI to replicate. I agree on the point of denying AI "artists" the title. I wouldn't say that it completely removes the creator from his work... if they actually edit the damned thing! I've seen artists who use the aid of AI and edit the image themselves, putting at least some effort to make it truly theirs. Oh and obviously realism in art is not the only standard, and it isn't relevant ever since photography was invented. That's where impressionism comes from, expressing something that only humans, not machines (camera) can replicate. Another point that is weak is that nobody enjoys AI slop... true. But people do enjoy AI content, they just don't realise it is AI made in those cases. What I mean is that a good result of an AI (not slop) is indistinguishable from human made exactly because we enjoy best human made content, or at least to a human standard of creation. Another point about the "adult content" is wrong and only goes to strengthen my counter argument. There is already almost 1,5 MILLION ai generated entries on rule 34 since about a year or so? So yeah, people do enjoy AI art of their favourite characters, maybe they exactly generate it themselves. Why? because it's cheaper. And so we need to go back to the statement made by Asmongold which you didn't truly engage with. He is objectively correct, AI is here to stay and it will replace many artists, or at least undercut them in the market. But, and here I agree with you, it will never completely replace human art. Photography even though it can perfectly picture an image, artists just found their own niche within the market for making images, not perfect replicas of reality, but imbued with "human touch". The point about the AI slop videos is again wrong as already adressed earlier, it is a fallacy. You don't enjoy AI that is SLOP, but you might enjoy AI assisted creations. What's the difference? The same as you don't care about a piece of art that was made without effort by a human artist, because humans can also make slop. What is AI assisted creation? Check out a channel by the name of "Neural Viz", it is incredibly funny scripted absurd comedy with edited AI visuals. It clearly is made with a lot of effort on the part of whoever the creator is, which ends up creating an odd and somewhat eerie but definitely not sloppy art. The point about streamers and para-social attachment is also factually wrong. Think of the Harry Harlow experiment where a monkey baby got attached to a fake surrogate mother. Or of all the people who are adicted to AI chatbots. As you can see, people most definitely can get attached to AI and form para-social bonds with them, whether or not it is pathological. An there is an AI streamer that is beloved by many, Neurosama AI who is a cute AI streamer made by a british bloke. Indoubtedy the success is in large part exactly because of Vedal's involvment in her creation and his personality, which only goes to prove my point further, that AI art can be enjoyable and not "sloppy". Then you say about AI replicating human touch. I think this is validating to both sides. This proves that we hold human art in highest regard. I am not for AI "replacing" all artists, this will never happen. It will most certainly be here to stay, carving it's own niche. I myself am an artist, I don't use AI but I just plainly hate luddites and misinformed individuals spreading alarmist and irrational rhetoric (of what I don't want to accuse you of, just... naivety). Geez this comment is long... but that is because there was a lot of wrongs from your video to be addressed. I hope you see this comment, at least for the sake of forming a more informed and elaborate stance against AI, if not convincing you to leave this immature indignation behind entirely. I hope your channel blows up ;)