Raw LLM Responses

I think people focus on the wrong issue. On the one hand, AI art is obviously "art" since it can be expressive, pretty, practical, everything hand made art CAN be. And I think no one really thinks that tomorrow, every art gallery will be filled with AI slop. So the question, whether AI art is art or not is redundant. Cause the "honesty" of the art isn't and never was the problem. Going back to the "photography" argument: There are artists who make incredible art with photography and are exibited in galleries around the world... but that doesn't automatically mean, the selfie you took last saturday when you were on the toilet counts as high art. It's the copyright problems and the fact, that traditional artists lose their jobs to it that is the problem. The Genie is out of the bottle and we will never not have AI art ever again. It robs us of something that made humans unique and discourages people to be creative. I was always an artistic and creative person and called myself an artist my whole life (not like a trained or professional artist but by spirit and way of thinking about the world). Creating stuff was always what made me unique cause I was usually the only one in a group that was good at drawing, building, crafting etc... and I feel like this means nothing now. Take "fake music" for a moment. I made music for years and wrote my own songs but what's the point when an AI can create a legitelmately good sounding song in seconds? So the questtion shouldn't be "is AI art real art?" cause the answer is YES it is... the question should be "How do we make sure artists are treated fairly and how do we protect our own creativity in a world where this trait is becoming less and less important?"