Raw LLM Responses

- AI does not produce "art", none of it can be analyzed or is worth doing so. The term "AI art" is inherently incorrect, it is just an image. - That "AI analog horror series" is AI-assisted, not made by AI. There is a director behind it who still has to manually work to make everything cohesive and worth getting into. Things are simple: what is AI generated isn't art. There can be art made that integrates this imagery, but those pieces will simply never be organic or have anything of value to offer besides their flat face value. Good art doesn't lie in the first layer. AI art can look as intricate and convincing as it wants but it remains void of meaning. You can't analyze it, you can't learn from it, anything it can offer besides just being a pretty picture is still traced back to the artists it learned from, not itself. None of this AI art keeps the public's attention for more than a month, year tops. The term "AI" is even wrong. There is no "artificial intelligence" producing these things, we have not achieved that yet, it's a marketing term to describe coding that can evolve itself instead of just executing the same commands. There is no intelligence behind any of this besides the intelligence of the humans coding the AI. It's still executing a task just like you using the bucket tool in photoshop. Remember, creating good art is a skill that takes years to get right. None of these imitations are comparable to the works of man and everybody is noticing. AI is seen as largely cheap by the world right now, rightfully so.