Raw LLM Responses

i think there are 3 stages of art, one being replaceable by AI in due time, and one being literally untouchable by such, at least in intent. stage 1: on one side of the spectrum theres fully abstract art, or art which only exists based on its creation and intent. whether thats just a piece to make you question the artists intent, or straight up something like a painting made by an animal or child. where the main - if not only beauty is analyzing the intent and process. this can and will never be able to be replaced by AI. stage 2: then there is hybrid art. that which is both functional and meaningful. that is probably the main conflict where most of this discussion starts and dies. because on one hand it has a level of beauty and meaning to it, but on the other hand it serves a dull visual purpose thats meant to be clear. this is very obvious if you look at good program ui art. its meant to appeal to human intuition, which is highly pattern-based and functional, but its also meant to be inviting to the viewer, which is artistic. and ofc most digital art also tries to depict something directly, while still leaving room for artistic expression. This in theory could not be replaced by AI either, but depending on the customer request it might slip into stage 3. more on that below. stage 3: and the last stage, which i think will be made by ai inevitably, is purely functional art. whether thats just a program which is just "meant to work" and nothing more. or just iconography which sole purpose is to be barely unique enough to be distinguishable. since humans partially rely on intuition, this goal can't really be reached by any artist, at least in its purest form. That's why this is where art of the previous stage tends to go to die. Basically, if you have an artist who wants to make something inspiring, but their customers want something of pure functionality, in the past these artists were still able to live out their personal preferences due to a lack of alternatives. but then, cameras were invented, and self portraits became less of a reflection of the artist, and more of a spontaneous snapshot of the time, with no direct inspiration. And i think AI is the same. it didn't make the world less creative, it just allowed people that didn't care about meaning in their product to begin with to "skim the fat" and just go full functional. Like replacing traditional lightbulbs. From a pure perspective of meaning, i dont think ai will kill art. but from a monetary perspective, it might seriously harm it. Which indirectly means less artists due to it becoming less sustainable. So in other words, Art will have to become less commercial, and more personal. More hobby, and less function. Which i would say might even be a good thing in the long-term.