Raw LLM Responses

Whoa whoa whoa, you do not have to be talented to be an artist... what is going on here? Unfortunately there is a lot of misguidedness coming from everywhere and especially from the host. I understand that people are not comfortable considering it art, but it is because a human made it. A button was not pressed and a random thing came out, the image was crafted by a prompt. And yeah I get it, people don't want to say that's art, then we go down the slippery slope of writing not being art then, which it is--any creative work from a thinking being is art. Is it good art? No, it was largely produced by a tool, an AI tool. Is it art that we can say was created by natural talent? No, not really. And if you consider it art when Photoshop is used, when folks use the magic of its tools to make things disappear or turn into something else through obfuscation, cutting, moving, etc., then you have to consider it art in this case as well. What if the initial AI-generated image is then loaded into an image manipulation program (e.g., gimp, Photoshop) and then completely repainted, used as a backdrop that someone then digitally traces like a camera lucida? Is that also not art? Then anything made with a camera lucida is no longer art - so get ready for that fight you folks! Look, I get it, you think people are lazy ass hats that use AI-generative software, but it is still a tool and things made with it are still art. The underlying software itself is like the molecular composition of atoms that make the different colors of your paints on a palette when you make a portrait on a canvas. I don't consider it cheating that you magically are able to put colors on a plane instead of colors coming from your actual body or bodily fluids, you get those colors from somewhere else. For most AI-generative art software, they are largely trained on all of humanity's art and creations in a sense, it has bits of beauty and magnificence from all of our artistic works, that's how it's so powerful, it had to be trained on real human creativity and awesomeness to be anywhere near what it is now. And I think that says something quite beautiful. But once again, it is not really "good" art... the artist's hand and mind didn't really put in too much effort beyond the writing of the prompt and yes maybe that took a long time, and ultimately, the piece may look nice but it's not good art. I think it can become better the more a human hand changes or edits the image as opposed to just saving the output directly and saying "Boom! There's my art!". And it certainly should not be sold for as much or more money than a completely hand-crafted piece, and the artist should be * honest * about it being AI-generated otherwise they definitely fall into the butthead zone. What if I used AI-generative software only trained on hand-crafted drawings of mine, and pieces I traced or painted all by hand and scanned? What if it was hundreds or thousands of my hand-made sketches? And then I generated a new image from that data using a prompt I write? Is that not art too? The slippery slope cannot be escaped my friends, so understanding and considering it art like it is eliminates the slippery slope and we get to live in a world where we can appreciate each other's creativity no matter where it comes from, as long as we are honest about it, what we craft, regardless of physical ability (would you say someone with no arms can't be a painter? and they have to use their feet? what if they have no legs? then they have to use AI-generative art... as a quick example of another slippery slope) is art. Ultimately as well, one cannot argue taste, and make objective statements about creative pieces, but we do it for fun anyways, and as long as we're honest about it, we can be comfortable with holding weighted opinions on whether something is "good" or "bad" art. Anything we create and share with each other is art my friends, and I say that with love and affection; and then of course, whether or not it is GOOD art is a TOTALLY different matter.... 🖖