Raw LLM Responses

Second argument isn't proofing anything. If the take is in that the art is a way of communicating ones feelings and ideas by sound/sight. and ai is an instrument of a human, so if human really put some meaning in it the result is the same. (Not like art has to have meaning anyway, peoples mind will make it up cuz it doesn't like the incompleteness, it's just an objective neuroscientific fact) And if the take is that it's about the story of making art rather than about art and people to people interactios (which is still sounds like a lame excuse)...than it doesn't matter cuz we speak about the art itself rn. >If you ask ai about star wars it will give you star wars...what should it give if not what you asked for bruh. About frame to frame copies, there are experiments of people trying replicate picture or situations remembered long ago getting similar results. about creativity read Rollan Bart and Michelle Foucault of 60s they basically predicted it. I'm pretty sure without copying there would be no renaissance which were copying the antiquity cuz if it sells- it sells. + homages on which some people caught a few oscars cuz we are living in a post modern. Coming back to the art as a way of communication it always needs a *context* to be understanded, so isn't really creative by itself and/or otherwise it not doing it's job well. If the take of inspiration is in that event human adds something close to him in it, does it means that recolors/reskins of others art is legal for copyrighting cuz "i added something of mine"? Or original but 999 times recolored adopts?