Raw LLM Responses

It Is very ironic to me that after watching dozens of videos from different people on the same topic, generally the arguments remain the same, the caveats the values the preconceived notions and the diaregard for any nuance of how the technology works, can be used, by who and how, what we do know about how It can work, what we don't know, what experts say vs others and if the conclusions you reached or the majority have reached are correct or not, simply dismissing It with one headline and moving on, no understanding (ironic) no deeper thought, just the video and the point and those that agree and those that don't, regardless of the veracity or the claims, regardless of if the video contains any notions of considerations of other points of View, simply 'im correct and here Is why', It Is indeed very ironic to me that you make these sweeping claims about AI's incapacity to be original because It simply takes from what already exist and only that (something humans don't do because we are magical mystical spiritual beings made of light and infinite inmortal soul/s) and yet, always, without fault, these AI critical videos boils down to, well, your video, so much so that whenever i see a new one pop up i dread that i will waste my time, again, hearing the exact same baseless and biased claims made by everyone else, i would say that feels souless but i don't think those exist so i'll just say uninspiring. Read the paper you cited, it does not prove what you think It does, please, if not at the very least read critiques of It from expert on the subject, there are a lot of them. From watching the video It seems the fundamental point Is that, using AI removes humanity from what you create from It, that humanity is this 'thing' you never really define and that somehow, using AI makes you less human, somehow, but what Is humanity? What Is humanity to you? To me? To different cultures? Do you think the value of human art Is the same and perceived everywhere else the same way? You live in an individualized captialistic culture, your definitions of what Is and Is not humanity are not universal, to you if you substract some form of effort to a creation, at least that Is the fundamental argument of your video, even if you don't explicitly make It, then you are less human, writing itself was critiqued in a similar way, as we no longer had to memorize oral histories and myths, do you think nothing was lost upon it's invention? Our capacity to memorize, to think, to add our own 'soul' into these memories we carry in our minds and voices, now corrupted by writing. We didn't need writing, we built civilizations without It, we had agriculture without It, history, knowledge and culture was already accesible! All you needed Is your head and your voice, hell even those that cannot use their voices can use their hands, or their feet, or any other part of their bodies to communicate, so why even invent writing at all? It was all accesible in the first place by out very nature as human beings, writing will NEVER be able to produce true art, only entertainment, and you are less human for using It. Something Is missing there no? Was that correct? Do you think that if i Made such statements back then It would have resonated with the people living in those times? Would they have pressured writers using this new medium to contract orators to perform? Perhaps the number of people repulsed by writing and pressuring others would have made you feel validated and that ultimately, humans would be drive out this corruptor of the human spirit, and we would make away with It. Maybe you're just wrong, and maybe you don't even know how wrong.