Raw LLM Responses

A LOT of this video is based on the claim that AI art will disrupt the human art industry, and the claim is only justified by what's essentially a "if you get my drift". From what I've seen, AI art seems to be developing into a market of its own. With the exception of certain spaces (like practical graphic design), people don't seem to be forgoing legitimate art for AI art. Rather, people seem to be attracted to AI art for its own sake, primarily its novelty (which raises questions about its longevity, but I digress). It makes sense if you consider art as a form of communication. A huge part of what makes art interesting and valuable is that a person made it. As an analogy, why do people pay top dollar for a photorealistic painting/drawing, when cameras can do it for practically free? The answer of course is that the value comes from the perception of skill that went into it, the fact that a human was able to create such a realistic representation of the real world. Another example is the appeal of abstract art. A painting in the style of Jackson Pollock could be created by anyone (or even by accident), but it wouldn't have the same value because the point of Pollock's paintings was to capture the mindspace that he was in, in other words they are an expression of a fundamentally human experience. A sort of "what kind of chaos arises from my current emotional state?" The only way an AI could replicate that would be if it simulated a human life (and honestly I believe if a simulated human created art, it deserves the recognition for it). It's similar to how programs like ChatGPT are able to talk like humans, but there is no legitimate intention behind the words. The program isn't communicating anything to you. The video touches on Artists who have had their styles copied by AI, but it does beg the question of whether anyone has demonstrably lost revenue for their work due to the presence of AI art (excluding violations of copyright because of exact replicas). In other words, more than half of the arguments posed in this video (and most of the more critical ones) are based on this claim, which we are asked to simply presuppose as true.