Raw LLM Responses

You make some fair points BUT you seem to overlook the concept of ‘influence’ in creative arts. Indeed, influence has been seen as a badge of honour from up and coming artists ‘learning’ from those that went before. Interesting aside regarding Elton John, a campaigner against AI generated music, though himself regularly claiming influence of 4-5 well-known artists that went before him…he didn’t invent the wheel. What current generative ai is doing is effectively taking ‘influence’, just faster and more comprehensively than most humans can. As the newer JEPA models are added to LLMs, we’ll start to see things that are very different from the influences they have taken. Just to add, I’ve taught and practiced (full-time paid) visual arts for 35 years, but I can’t deny the almost daily improvements i see in AI gen. When a ‘client’ has the choice (even now) between paying big bucks for human-crafted solutions, or virtually free ‘untouched by humans’ AI that still gets the job done, the profit imperative is too significant to ignore. One more thing: On ‘art is subjective’ you undermine the whole purpose of visual communication. Here’s a little test you can think about: A) Do you think art is a visual language? B) and if you answered ‘yes’, what other form of language would be forgiven when it is so incomprehensible that we need to excuse it as ‘subjective’? There’s a whole lecture on the nuance of communication, the context and stratification of known audiences blah blah, but don’t be lazy by perpetuating the ‘subjective’ argument. If you believe there is no jeopardy in art as communication, meaning there is no possibility for it to be ‘wrong’, then you quite literally validate ANYTHING as ‘art’. On this I leave you with two words that can get you pretty far….demonstrable intentionality.