Raw LLM Responses

The "modern art is bad, therefore AI art good" is some strange but totally irrelevant extension of the "culture war" by people who haven't taken a shower after 2016. They're not training AIs on on Michelangelo or da Vinci, or whoever these people would consider good. Idk shit about art bc I'm a compsci nerd but the actual problem is obvious to anyone with a bit of common sense, including every serious AI researcher/dev. I find the technology interesting and worthwhile for various technical reasons but I don't think we have found an actual use case for this kind of generative AI. Industry is ofc salivating at the prospect of cutting labor costs but unless some new breakthrough is found, or the current methods improve by *a lot*, there's just no way human artists are entirely replaceable even in those soulless, purely profit driven projects. Which is not to say there is no problem, or that the problem won't be getting worse at least in the short-to-mid term. There's a similar thing happening in the programming world with "vibe coding" and generative AI for code that's been trained on FOSS code. It changes how things work and it is impacting the job market but you can't "vibe code" your way to a working product. The industry is just making a massive bet that this tech can be scaled to the point where human labor can be completely automated but no one actually knows whether that will pan out. I think trying to argue with AI art proompters is about as productive as trying to talk to someone who still talks about gamergate. They have this fantasy that artists are like the coping and seething wojack, and that they're "getting what they deserve". It's just completely pointless to engage with that kind of mentality imo.