Raw LLM Responses

This is something that hasn't affected me directly so far, but I definitely agree with the points you are making here. The term AI art itself is quite misleading, since firstly, there is nothing like real AI yet, just decent deep machine learning algorithms that are getting slightly more powerful and are getting more attention, and secondly, Art is a human method of expression and a human activity (Although not exclusive to humans as biological species as I've noticed while looking at some research on animals and even fungi and plants), so generating digital imagery through more "sophisticated" image manipulation techniques of already existing artwork shouldn't really be considered an original piece of art, as Sam correctly pointed out in this video. A better term for what it really is, would be something like "Deep image manipulation", since this describes the process a bit more accurately imo, and would create much less confusion among people, when it comes to building a n opinion about this technological process. So, while I see many possible benefits of future machine learning algorithms for artists, like automating certain routine tasks and helping us work faster and be more efficient with our time, or using the power of a machine to calculate better engineering solutions when it comes to product design, architectural engineering etc. something that we have been using for a long time now anyway to some extent, our current "AI Art" producing algorithms are simply based on trickery, and the fact that there is just a pool of artwork that is too large for most people to see all of it. So using a smart process of "blurring and sharpening" a mixture of other people's real works and photographs, is very different from the process of producing an original work of art. And while I believe this should be done for the purposes of research and development of the machine learning algorithms, with the hope that someday a machine might actually be able to "Imagine" things by itself, along with other possible positive side effects of such a research, giving us extra food for inspiration, the fact that companies now are starting to "resell" other people's work without their consent, after applying a few smart filters on top of an "Art soup", should definitely attract some more attention from people, and be regulated accordingly, before the damage becomes irreversible due to multiple precedents of this type of theft being allowed. I believe, that anyone who had even a very superficial look into the algorithms that are responsible for producing "AI art", would come to a very similar conclusion. So, thanks a lot for bringing these issues up, and for sharing an objective perspective on the reality of it. Even a person who has been blind since birth is capable of imagining and creating art, just like a deaf person can produce musical masterpieces, because of the extraordinary nature of the human intelligence and creativity. But what will a machine learning algorithm produce, if the only data it is fed is an empty black screen? Let's see what kind of an "AI Art" it would be able to produce with that dataset? When this happens, we might consider calling something "Intelligent", but for now, we should keep this term associated with the natural realm imo.