Raw LLM Responses

horse -> solves (among other things) transportation car -> solves transportation transportation is a practical and logistical problem, there is usually a clearly better solution (cars have many benefits over horses) and even if there isn't there are still benefits to either (trains are great for transporting things in bulk but cars are great for transporting individual things to specific locations) oil painting -> an expression, usually made with passion that may invoke beautiful emotions in an observer AI generated art (though I am not a professional prompter) -> a result, generated through uhh you don't know the precise workings either, which may invoke beautiful (but usually "disgusted" is more applicable) emotions in an observer art is a subjective medium, one can put various amount of life and soul in a piece of art but it should be noted this can only truly be done by a human you may notice "logistical problem" and "subjective medium" are *not* the same words — they are, in fact, closer to polar opposites. this has the funny little side effect of "being invalid for a comparison", believe it or not. AI art is not necessarily worse, and an AI doesn't literally steal*. it generates based on weights which were generated based on work from other people, and the concept of "stealing" digitally isn't really the same as physically stealing anyway, so I don't like this argument against AI. if we are being technical, AI generates images by getting a picture of noise and then denoising it using those weights (this is the only method I have heard of) in which case the actual art is technically made by RNG. but AI art is still a *ahem* ｓｉｌｌｙ concept *edit: I don't think the training data for AI is "stolen". I do think AI image results that depict copyrighted characters is stealing those characters. but only in that scenario, not the training. I just love yapping so much so I will do it a bit more: you probably heard about that Ai art competition that was won by a photo a guy made of a flamingo, which was actually just a real photo. the difference between that, even though it tries to look like AI art, and actual AI art is that behind that photo was (probably) some intention along the lines of "AI art is putting so much slop onto the art space and I want to fight back, so I will try to win this AI art competition with a real photo" and intention and passion like that is what in my opinion makes art art. like the em-dash I sneakily hid into my argument against those AI defenders, there's intention (to jokingly suggest that text might be AI generated itself) and that intention probably makes that one character more of an art piece then most AI generated stuff. and I feel like 99% of AI "artists" are just not trying to say anything, challenge anything or to put any passion into anything. this does leave a spot for a theoretical percent of people genuinely trying to channel passion through a generative AI, but even if those people exist AND they succeed in channeling anything, the whole space is so saturated already that it would just go unnoticed.