Raw LLM Responses

I am against AI replacing artists... but I think you're putting way too much emphasis on trying to break down metaphors and similes. The replacement of horses, the arrival of photography, etc, were all massive societal shifts. It feels your main counter against this is the same but only when it fits. You say cars didn't have to learn from millions of horses... but you strangely don't use the water/electricity argument when you talk about cars probably because you understand cars have had such an adverse effect on the environment when they replaced horses... But the point of those metaphors isn't a direct equality. It's about the unrelenting march of progress and advancements of technology and society. It's about the undeniable truth that AI is here to stay and what needs to change is how we use it, the limitations and legislation around it, but perhaps also you have to accept that it *will* change art in many medias forever. Here's my take: AI in art will become similar to how VFX became popular in movies. The people using it as a helper, as a way to make their art different, as a tool *amongst the rest of their toolbelt* will be normalized. But there will always be slop just like there will always be dunning-kruger, just like there will always be youtube slop and VFX slop and shitty versions of everything. I think it's absolutely fine to criticize the "ai artists" pretending they're the ones putting pixels on the digital canvas instead of admitting they're just telling some(thing/one) else what to do. I just don't think you can dismiss the entirety of GenAI just because low-effort generated crap is flooding your world. I'm even going to go one step further: I think we may see that the energy demands brought forth by AI may push us towards better energy production (renewables maybe, but perhaps we'll see nuclear fusion finally see the light of day?) which could in the long run greatly help us. Perhaps it'll push advancements in water filtration technology too? I don't know, but I can hope.