Raw LLM Responses

I don't get this. Why are you loosing an already won war? Like, most of your arguments are purely emotional and lack substantial value. Like, you could choose way better arguments to support your thesis. Things that you done that are manipulative: 1. Multiple ad hominem: 4:07 (Maybe this is mislabelled, but you are ridiculing "opponents?" to strengthen your existing arguments. I'm unsure whether even bother with listening them all as this pattern seems to be your narration style.), 5:14-5:35, 11:04 2. Straw man fallacy: 2:30 (Jason Allen disclosed it after the competition ended. Quoting him: "I know what will become of this in the end, they are simply going to create an ‘artificial intelligence art’ category I imagine for things like this". He did not try to pass of his "work" as traditional art -- (no em-dashes😞) he tried to show their equivalence. Whether his argument is with or without merit is a separate debate.), 13:31 (in this case refuting an argument by attacking a more extreme and stated by someone else than the original author of an argument -- I tried to find the source of that comment, but failed, so I might have misunderstood the intent of the author. If that's the case, then I'm sorry for the noise.) 3. False dichotomy - but it's not really your fault, the "general public" is using it. 4. Hasty generalisation (probably multiple): 11:23-12:12 (not said directly, but the silence is very audible -- this part's intent (correct me if I'm wrong) is to disprove ai generated content being a valid medium of art expression -- which cannot be shown by showing one low-quality example, showing multiple wouldn't suffice either: it's easy to give plenty of examples of low-quality "content" created using more traditional means, but that doesn't disprove that said tools cannot be used used as a mean for creating art), 24:09 (not that it's untrue, I just feel that you didn't give enough evidence to supporting that claim - random videos by random people is not equivalent to a concrete group of people) 5. Appeal to hypocrisy: 10:28 This list is probably non-exhaustive. And don't forget about the most important: Manipulative background music! (A must-watch about it is "Music on Reality TV is Insanely Manipulative" by Tantacrul.) - This part is only partially serious. It understandable that probably no one realised it. I just liked that video and it opened my eyes on a wide-spread phenomena that I hadn't noticed before. In your case the impact of music is only minimal. Mostly it's the delivery of facts (somewhat explained in the "ad hominem" section). ~~(I'm sorry, I didn't provide the timestamps, I realised that I should only after watching. If I'll have time I might do a rewach and add them back.)~~ Done! "I don't get this. Why are you loosing an already won war? " -- I'm sorry for saying that. I didn't put much thought into it (though it is a strong opening statement, maybe I'll be using it for other conversations). The "already won war" is ungrounded statement. There's still a lot to do. (Not art-related, but looks promising: https://superintelligence-statement.org) Closing thoughts: After rewatching your video multiple times, I came to conclusion that you've also included some good arguments, but they just were indigestible for me in this highly emotional form (during the first watch). Completely unrelated to the above comment (it's not for strengthening my arguments -- I'm just exploiting free publicity to share random thoughts after watching this video 3 times): 2:20 - I think you've accidentally said it backwards. 7:33 - I suppose that "Théâtre D’opéra Spatial" satisfies the bare minimum. After all, it has an interesting history (black ribbon!), but also there was *some* effort put into it " I have created 100s of images using it, and after many weeks of fine tuning and curating my gens, I chose my top 3 and had them printed on canvas after unshackling with Gigapixel AI". This makes it one of the few ai generated artworks (still without copyright protection - oh irony - unless there was a newer ruling that I'm not aware of). 10:04 - This is the best argument about about ai-generated-but-also-in-general art classification problem I heard online. (I'll use this occasion to provide my ignorant attempt at defining it: There are two tests that can be made: firs is common agreement (same as yours) and second (useful for categorising works outside of public knowledge): relative value -- what did you gain as an author from creating it / as a viewer from perceiving it, mostly equivalent to "How much effort did you put into making it?".) 11:21 - Definitly (intentional typo -- obscure reference) cutting edge technology. 17:28 - It feels like the whole ai industry is going to reinvent and adopt Builder.ai's "AI system" any time now. Also, are you going to give away these bananas? /j