Raw LLM Responses

Something that a lot of AI supporters bring up is photography, which I think is an interesting topic For one, photography was a new kind of technology that made it possible to create images that were literally impossible to make before that. Even if you look at the actual realism movement in art, those paintings look realistic from afar, but if you look at them closely they really don't have that much detail, they just give an illusion of detail. And if you do find an art piece that was made before photography was invented that has incredible detail even from close up, because there are always exceptions to everything, did the artist actually capture reality as it was? Of course not, painting something so detailed takes forever, it's impossible that someone could actually paint something 100% as it is in real life without having a photo as reference. Photography made it possible to ACTUALLY capture real life objectively. That was not really possible before. On the other hand, all I've ever seen AI be used for is to create images that are similar to what has been done before, like the Ghibli trend. The process is new, but the outcome isn't. And when people say "It will only get better, soon you won't even be able to tell the difference between human made art and AI art" to me that only diminishes the worth of AI art further. If AI art wanted to be valuable in the artistic sense, AI artists would seek to create art that looks different from any other art that has been done before. I can't claim that absolutely nobody in the world is trying to use AI to make art that looks new. But so far I haven't seen a good example of that, while I've seen countless of examples where people try to hide the fact that they used AI and they want people to believe it was hand-drawn. Why? That's not moving art forward, it's only limiting it to what has been done before. You could bring up Photoshop and similar tools to argue that the same applies there, since using digital tools to draw doesn't necessarily create art that looks way too different from traditional art either. Which is true, but as stated in the video as well, if you're using digital apps like Photoshop to draw, you still need to learn things like color theory, anatomy, perspective, shape design, values, almost everything you need to learn for traditional art as well. And there's the dissonance in my view. Most people who use AI want to use it to get results that look the same as digital or traditional drawings, while learning 0% of the things that go into making art like that. If you want to make art that looks like Da Vinci's art for example, why not just learn how to do it like he did? And if you're not interested in learning how to do that, then why not just try making a different type of art? And I'm not trying to tell anybody what to do. At the end of the day you can do whatever the hell you want. I just personally don't understand the point in wanting to do something while not being curious at all to learn more about the thing that you're trying to do.