Raw LLM Responses

Right now, the way AI is, I think it's way too hard to fine tune the end result the exact way you want it to be and that's when a human artist comes into play. It is in my opinion that in the future someone like me, who really does not understand a bit about the ins and outs of art, will be easily fooled by AI generated art. Nowadays it's trending and everyone is excited about AI generated art because it's new, people (like myself) see the result as our own (kinda) and say "yo that looks dope, it's me but as a mage" and then move on, most people mess with AI generated art just out of curiosity. The people (like us of course) will tell if AI generated art is actually art, if it's right or wrong. We cannot allow politicians to mess with this in such early stages, it's so early to tell what is going to happen, if this thing is actually going to do anything on the long-term and etc. Every new piece of technology pretty much always goes through what AI generated art is going through: Uber was going to kill the taxi job, but instead both can coexist. Another random thought about this topic: For something to be considered an art piece, it requires an artist. If AI generated images are art, then we can say that the AI that made the art is an actual artist? If so, does it deserve or should have a conscience to be able to accept or fight for its art to be copyrighted? If yes... Well... Skynet then? Run to the hills then? TLDR: It's too early to tell if AI art is actually going to generate any actually bad results in the real world in the long-term and it's up to us, including artists (but not politicians) to decide.