Raw LLM Responses

I disagree with your opinion on AI. I think a very similar arguments did happen when the camera was invented. (omg, what is the purpose of just taking a picture, when i learnt to use a pencil for years at art school) and when the digital art came on the scene (omg, what is the purpose of having a computer making all those beautifull gradients for you, you should do it yourself with gouache) Working and learning the technics to draw is not making art. If your job as an artist is only to produce some drawing, then you will be replaced in a near future. Story telling, creating emotion, communicating something. I think this is more important than the way you do those things. In that sense, using AI, or using the gradient tool in photoshop is similar. By default using the gradient tool will not make you a good artist, neither will using AI. So yes using AI is still art, in the same way using a camera is art and the same way using photoshop is art. only if you know what you are doing. But as for any tool, a poor artist will still be bad if he does not learn how to use AI. Typing prompt hitting enter and expecting the machine to come up with something is the exact same bad behaviour as randomly using the gradient and bucket tool to get a background and then slap a picture of someone on top of it. I strongly believe this is not what Allen did. A good artist will properly use the technology to enhance his skills as an artist. I think the parallel if you are not too young can be drawn with the apparition of digital. Old School teachers comnplaining that digital art is not art. No modern artist would argue this anymore but it was definitelly a big deal 30 years ago. Where i agree with you is that Allen should not compete in parallel with digital artists.