Raw LLM Responses

This video seems contradictory. You say that AI can never create art because it doesn't have human experiences, however it is the human who directs it in what should be created and chooses which prompt ends up being the "final cut". The images in a vacuum don't have any meaning or value, sure, but that meaning and value is then impressed upon them by the person who picks them out from among the dozen other versions of the same prompt to represent their idea most accurately, similarly to how a person commissions an artist to create what they themselves could not. Perhaps this is a bit pedantic of me and in reality you meant to state that things 100% made with AI from start to finish with no human oversight can't be art, but in the context of talking about the Angel's Engine that is clearly not the case. Honestly I find it quite confusing that you'd go on to say that "AI has no experiences" when it is in a way a collection of ALL human experience. None of those experiences actually belong to the AI of course, but to say that they're not real because they have been scraped from the internet and put into a machine is quite strange to say the least. On the matter of AI making people dumber and losing out on skills, this is obviously 100% correct. However, it is not unique to AI, that is the case with any kind of technology. Back in the day people could do complex calculations in their brains at a moment's notice, nowadays cashiers struggle with calculating proper change if the cash register is broken. Even earlier than that nearly everyone had at least some sewing skills for the sake of fixing and making one's clothes, but then manufacturing happened and clothes could be bought more easily and were made with machines instead, sewing stopped being an essential. The solution here is not rejecting the tool (which historically has never worked anyway) but rather encouraging natural human curiosity and passion. Less people nowadays know how to sew, but the ones that do are doing it because they enjoy it. They don't care that they can just go out and buy a new t-shirt, they enjoy the act of making their own clothes or fixing ones they already had. If you're worried about children not wanting to be artists what you should be focusing on most is encouraging them to experience and create art so that they may gain a passion for the process itself. This is easier said than done obviously, now more than ever in the era of the ipad babies. Making sure that kids actually grow up to be curious and passionate individuals would likely require systemic change as there simply is no way to prevent parents from offloading their duties onto electronics, many of them already are aware of the developmental damage it causes but either believe themselves unable of finding alternatives or simply don't care, but I digress. Lastly I'd just like to point out that the definition of "art" you use is not universal (a universal definition of "art" doesn't exist anyway). You imply that to make art something needs to have a "soul", to show a part of it's own experience, to express it's feelings or thoughts. Personally, I do not believe this to be the case. Art can be anything, man-made or not, intentional or entirely coincidental. A scribble made by a toddler barely aware of their own sentience? Art. A painting made by an elephant? Art. A shattered glass bottle shimmering on the floor? Art. A gasoline stain which shines with intricate patterns? Art. An interesting looking crack in the pavement? Art. The colourful pebbles on a beach? Art. The sun shining through leaves on a windy day? Art. The sun and moon and the stars in the sky? All art. But even if you insist on disagreeing and stay with your definition, it is still flawed because things like "intention" and "meaning" of the author are not actually things humans can see in another person's art. Don't believe me? Let's try an example then: imagine AI art progresses to a point where it is indistinguishable from human art in quality, in that situation how do you discern which drawings were made with "soul" and which were not? The simple answer is: you can't. That weird-looking amalgamation of seemingly random parts tossed on a canvas? That's actually a contemporary piece made by an avant-garde artist with a complex meaning only understandable when you become familiar with their other works. That beautiful oil painting with clearly religious imagery? AI. The difference between things made with or without "soul" is only in the perception of the viewer. This truth was apparent long before AI was ever a thing, just look at people's attitudes towards modern and experimental pieces. So many are dismissive of it or out right call it a scam because they don't see the purpose of it, they don't see the meaning and intention of the artist and to them that means there simply isn't one. Contrarily, just because a piece of art was made with no intention or meaning in mind doesn't mean that someone else can't see it as deep and meaningful, that's the whole reason why scholars can argue over different interpretations of old books or paintings, or how people can walk away after watching a movie with wildly different impressions. At the end of the day the intention of the author truthfully does not matter beyond their own experience of the piece, the only thing that matters is how each one of us individually perceives it because that's the only thing we can be sure of (no, interviews and tweets after the fact do not count, your piece of art should be able to stand on it's own and if it requires additional explanation you're missing the point). Anyway, with all that out of the way I'd just like to say that I am *NOT* an AI bro. I just disagree with the thesis of this video and your arguments. Imo the reason we should hate AI art is the unethical way in which it's training data is sourced as well as the environmental impact it has, not any of the dumb spiritual/esoteric reasons you proposed.