Raw LLM Responses

Maybe I'm using it wrong, but I've experimented with AI art and it's mostly pretty bad as it lacks intent or context. If you just look at a piece of AI art without the context of what it was actually asked to draw, it seems impressive. It also produces decent results if you ask for something very general with a million references to bash together, like a portrait of Jesus. But the more specific and niche you get, the worse the result is. Even even that Jesus portrait is going to be very generic as the AI can't come up with new ideas or interesting compositions, clear silhouettes, or clever new uses of colour or lighting. It's funny you say abstract art is where human artists will continue to thrive, because honestly, abstract art is the only kind of art I see AI producing legitimately satisfying results. In Dada or surrealism, pointlessness is the point. Clarity and intent are deliberately rejected. I could see people who just need a generic image for their blog or self-published book using AI-generated images. But if you have a specific vision, story or idea you want to get across or want something original, you'll need to hire an artist. If you aren't okay with all the random little errors an AI without consciousness will inevitably make and you want to really monetize the work (copyright law is such that nonhuman produced images are not protected), you're better off learning to draw or hiring an artist yourself. This isn't going to change unless we're in a sci-fi horror scenario where AI actually does develop consciousness to point of HAL in 2001 or Data in Star Trek. I just don't see that happening. The evidence seems to indicate consciousness is something we don't yet understand but which only develops in organic lifeforms. AI developing consciousness seems to me to be about as likely as my lawnmower developing consciousness.