Raw LLM Responses

These people defending AI generative "art" doesn't understand the word art. They are mostly people that weren't able to do "art" before and when they now are able to generate beautiful visual material they are not wanting it to be in bad faith maybe? IMO, and in the opinion of the law, a generative AI doesn't create anything new in that it's not copyrightable. It puts combinations together like a chef following the biggest cook book there ever was. But there is no creator there. It is not "art". Art is about human creation putting emotion into the world. What generative AI makes is not art. It can be viewed as beautiful by an observer but that is all subjective. The objective art is not about the result, it's about the process. And you literally can't put AI in the context of an objective art process because it can't create without a human giving it instructions. The human also can't use AI as a tool to emulate or reflect their emotions, it can only ask the AI to embody their emotions but you will never have a generated image that is the same as the one the human would've made. You will always need MORE artistry to turn a generated image into art. This is IMO why "AI art" is so boring in the end. It might initially seem interesting or thought provoking but there is no soul in AI imagery and the longer I stared at it the more that became blatantly obvious. And before any1 from the AI camp hates. I spent the whole of 2023 exploring generative AI's possibilities through a masters in audiovisual studies. I'm a tech guy and a musician. I was one of you in the beginning but after desperately trying to find the value of the tools I can't say that there is anything special there. Well there is something special there but only for the grifters that's for sure.