Raw LLM Responses

I always thought that a better comparison for AI images is photography. At first the process seems similar, you click a button and a picture comes out almost instantly. Where photography and AI art divulge however is the intent. In my opinion, even something as innocuous as a picture of a fucking rock has more intent. I look at something like that and I start wondering “Who took that photo? Why at this angle? Why at this time? Why take the photo at all? Was it post-processed or is it a raw photo and why?” et cetera. There’s a story behind this hypothetical picture of a rock. Maybe it took the photographer a whole trip to get to it? Maybe it’s in a place of great significance? This questioning and search for intention is all a part of consuming and understanding art, at least for me. With an AI image all one can wonder is “What prompts did you write for it to shit this thing out?” and just “Why tho?”. There’s no story behind it, no intent to be gleaned except that of the machine which doesn’t have any lol. It just mashed things together in a way it was trained to. It looks nice, i guess, but there’s no point to it, no artistic process, no intent. To me, calling AI generated images “art” is like calling a place or a random object you find on the street art. It’s just a random pointless thing you found, not a thing one purposefully made. It’s true that art can be anything, but it can’t be literally everything.