Raw LLM Responses

Sure, the _current_ "AI's" (in quotes) don't learn in the same sense as humans, but rather, they more or less slap pieces of copied stuff together to frankenstein something that would fulfills the task. However, judgements like this shouldn't be made forever based on where we are today, because one day there will be actual AI's (without quotes) that can learn and then make new material, even art. That day just isn't here yet. Also, I don't understand why the people who use AI to do something by writing prompts think they're artists themselves. In most cases the prompts based on which the current fake AI's (and possibly in the future actual AI's) start working on, seem to be so cursory that in the painter analogy it's like a client ordering a painting from an artist. So even if such a prompter person had available a real AI that could produce genuine new content, the artist (analogous to the painter) would be the AI, not the prompter. That said, I've seen some AI videos (that did not try to pass of as non-AI content) that looked so complex that the prompt must have been closer to the script of a music video or something. In such case, one could argue that the prompter did produce _some_ art in the form of the script or prompt. And if the AI would manage to produce actual art, e.g. a non-plagiarized video, based on the script, the prompter could count as an artist who participated in the work and would be creditable, similarly as a script writer of a traditional video. (And the AI would be analogous to a performer in a traditional video.) So in brief, my take about this is that the prompter _could_ be an artist, but currently rarely is (and currently the _art_ in question would not be the AI's output, but the prompter's output). And an AI _could_ be an artist, but we are far from being there yet.