Raw LLM Responses

I think that Artificial Intelligence in and of itself is a bit of a misleading name, as it implies that the algorithms are intelligent in the same way that humans are, but an 'AI' art algorithm can't take inspiration because taking inspiration is about understanding the underlying reasons and complexities behind certain decisions, and not just copying the superficial 'look' of a decision's end result. in the simplest sense, take a stick figure, for example. we create a circular head, a torso, and each of an average human's four limbs. each limb is more or less the same length (usually arms are just a teeny bit shorter than legs, but not always) because that's how a human looks when simplified into basic, formless lines. We can all recognize that a human can reasonably be compared to that shape--and you can pose this however you'd like, regardless of whether a human could reasonably do it or not. An AI, on the other hand, would simply take a look at 10,000 images of stick figures in various poses, see that there are black pixels in a line in 15% of the images in the dataset that have similar keywords to the prompt, and so it'll make a black line. It had no concept of what a stick figure is, nor why a stick figure, say, only has 4 limbs, only has one head, etc., so it might give the stick figure 3 heads, or 15 arms, or six legs--or maybe even just one huge leg. This is because there were enough black pixels in those areas in enough of the photos that the AI thought there should be black pixels in the generated image. Artificial Art also can't be creative. Generative, sure, but 'generating' a piece of art doesn't mean it's creative (I.E. new) in nature. AI, at a fundamental level, *can't* do anything new--and it certainly can't do anything new that an artist couldn't already do. Everything an AI has done thus far has already been done by a human--possibly several humans; it's reliant on humanity and thus can never surpass it, so the people claiming that an 'AI takeover' is coming and that human artists will be completely replaced are simply just wrong. Even if, by some miracle, AI becomes the preferred method of art generation by businesses, artists will still need to make art for the AI's dataset, and nobody with even a single shred of self-respect would want to make art for that. This is all without even going into the stealing, the lack of specificity--the fact that AI can't change individual parts of an image to suit a specific look or idea, the completely obscene amounts of wastewater being produced by AI server farms (~142,000,000 milliliters/~37,500 gallons PER DAY--and this is being generous!), or even the fact that AI art still looks like complete ass, and is super recognizable as AI even with all of its supposed improvements. Generative AI is a toy. Nothing more.