Raw LLM Responses

honestly, that ai have enough embedded meaning or that an agent doesn't have a cohesive symbology to express meaning or that ai doesn't have enough "personality" isn't a great argument. cause it's more of they don't yet. it's not inevitable they ever will but, as far as i'm aware, meaning and agents being unique individuals just isn't a priority being commonly designed for. it really doesn't seem unreasonable that an agent could be designed to put "personality" into their work and to have emotional meaning in their pieces. it's just not something currently cared about by the people making the model. as for inspiration i'd say the short answer is human minds aren't copyrightable but a trained ai certainly is. longer i'd say humans having a soul and consciousness rather then being purely an algorithm. also, i don't even think you need to get into 'that it will produce copyright infringing images' to claim infringement. looking into it it seems like this is actually an untested legal question but the trained weights of an agent should be copyrightable in my opinion. which'd make the ai agent trained on copyrighted material a derivative work requiring permission. on if ai art is a medium like digital art, i'd say you're doing it wrong. prompt generators sure aren't, but i wouldn't call it impossible. using ai to work with an artist rather then replacing them should be feasible. admittedly i haven't seen anyone trying to make tools like this, other then light ai light line stabilization and whatnot.