Raw LLM Responses

I know this is an unpopular take, but I think AI art is no different than photography, and that's the way it will be viewed in the future. Photographs don't take the same kind of skill that traditional art does, and with phones and technology getting better every day, it only makes it easier and easier for someone with no skills at all to take good photos. And it's the same with AI. 99% of ai art is complete and utter trash. That's no different than how most photographs are also pretty bad. Nobody's winning an art competition with their instagram photo of their dinner. But photography as an artform does exist; it requires skill to frame, and set up a photo. Finding a subject, and capturing it, and then editing it is a skill. And similarly, with AI art, 99% of it is trash, but if someone's able to find a subject, capture it, and edit it well enough that people don't' even realize it's AI art, that takes creative artistic skill. This guy's efforts might not be enough to meet that standard. He played around with prompts, which is like the equivalent of playing around with lighting, or angles; it requires at least a bit of theoretical artistic talent to decide evaluate its value. And he edited it in photoshop, which is applying actual technical skill. But he didn't really do that much, it's mostly still AI. But you can easily imagine in the future, actual artists using AI but putting a lot more human touch into it to make real art. And that's not a crazy hypothetical; photographers literally do this. Even artists do this. Things like generative fill is a key example of AI being used as a tool. And the more popular it becomes, the more people are gonna use it as a crutch for skills they don't have, but then apply different skills they do have to add their own personal touch.