Raw LLM Responses

I've thought about the subject of "what is art" a lot before and have found a definition that while self referential I still find useful I define art as; a product that has been created with the intent of being consumed as art When I take my personal definition and apply it to AI generated images, it begs a few questions First off, who is the artist? While a person does provide a prompt and can edit and curate the image, in my mind it is the AI that is producing the image. Any edits a person makes to that image would be the same as painting over an already existing image to make it your own and the new product can then be judged as its own work. If the edits were just to clean up the image and didn't add much to the composition of the image, then those facts should be considered. So if the AI is what I consider is the thing creating the primary product, can that AI have the intent for the image it produces to be consumed as art? I would argue no, unless the AI in question has some form of sentience, it would not be able to grasp the concept of art nor have intent in a meaningful way. With that established, my own internal logic dictates that I do not consider AI generated images to be art and should not be judged as art. HOWEVER There is one more thing I can consider here; if a person were to create a generative AI with the intent that the AI, and by extension the things the AI produces, to be art in it of itself, I would concede that the generated images would be considered a facet of the art that is the AI. But just as many condemn those that trace over other's works, the AI being built on dubiously sourced data should still be taken into consideration when judging it as art. I hope I have presented my thoughts on this well, thank you.