Raw LLM Responses

I do agree with everything you're saying except for the comparison of AI versus photography. AI generative art is exactly like photography in its execution. A photographer may frame, color, and edit creatively, but their art isn’t possible without the machine. No photo exists without a camera. Same with generative AI. You also said photographers spend years learning their craft while AI users don’t. But just like you wouldn’t consider someone snapping a random iPhone picture a photographer, you shouldn’t equate the lowest form of AI prompting with the entire field. There are advanced AI prompters who spend days or weeks refining prompts, writing thousands of words to capture an exact look and feel, then running their results through post-processing like photographers do—color correction, composition tweaks, etc. That is a real craft. On the history point, I don’t agree that photography “went its own way” while art pulled ahead. Video is just photography in succession. And the global film industry built on that has far outpaced animation in scale and reach. So photography didn’t fall behind—it evolved into the most dominant art medium of our time. I also believe traditional art will always be valued. Hand-drawn and painted work has a unique place. But AI will also carve out a permanent role in the creative pantheon. Avoiding it is not realistic. The better stance is to define how it coexists. Hip-hop is a strong parallel. It started with sampling, and critics dismissed it as “not real music” because producers weren’t playing instruments. Yet it became one of the most dominant genres in the world. The key wasn’t banning sampling—it was building accountability so sampled artists got paid. AI should follow that path. Scraped art must have value assigned, and those artists should receive compensation indefinitely. The fight shouldn’t be to erase AI, but to ensure creators are paid fairly for the work their contributions make possible.