Raw LLM Responses

I have no clue if this'll be read by anyone, but I have hope that my points made in this argument will at least shed some light as to why I've always been confused by the statement "Human made art isn't generative art" or statements of the like. that statement, to me at least, is frustrating simply because it's constantly spoken as a definitive statement, like any human alive can prove that is the case?? I LOVE biology, art, computer science but to my understanding not one member of the scientific community as yet to prove that the process of making art using memory references, or pictures, or still models is not in any way shape or form the same as an AI performing the action. could science prove how the human brain generates art definitively? maybe one day. do we know now? no, like not a shred of evidence to prove or disprove. I hate the phrasing because it is intellectually incorrect and speaks in black and white facts that are not provable reality. What I DO agree with is that the human element, the ability to generate art without mistakes, artifacts from the collage of art being borrowed from, nor get proportions incorrect is something to be admired, but the fact that at hand is...its not a special process. it is my belief that AI will one day be taught the pattern template of all our creative hobbies/careers and do it a million times better, faster than any human could keep up with. but despite all this, removing humans from the art is literally ripping the core of what art was made for, its soul. Its US. i support human made art and treat AI generation as a novel instant gratification device simple as that, but art is HUMAN, art of the humans is made with story, tradition, community, time and care, you cannot duplicate the many many deep foundational parts of ART versus a pretty picture made by a machine. THAT is the argument i want people to be making and saying, not constantly using verbiage that not even the hardiest of biology or neuroscience majors could prove today.