Raw LLM Responses

@36:22-.-You seem to like to share clips of what other people say, as though the mere fact they hold a position is evidence of something. This isn't a scientific discussion, you can't just cite experts to establish what the consensus is, you have to actually give an argument (and so far your idea of an argument is just saying something is the case without elaboration). Frankly, my take away from this clip is that art director is an underappreciated position, seemingly even by art directors themselves. From his description: it sounds like he put in a lot of mental and commutative work to produce the results, and the artwork may not have been as good if it weren't for his input. So I would argue _both_ names should be on there. Why shouldn't both be credited? Why I only have one name on there? If only the physical act of creation matters, and the mental and conceptual aspects are irrelevant: Then should movie directors never be credited as the film creator? Should game programmers _always_ be credited _over_ game designers? I mean, as a writer (of both the story and argumentative variety, but not of the professional variety), I can say the work of a writer is almost entirely conceptual. The only physical act there is to writing a story or an essay is the pudding of words into a digital word processor (like notepad or the YouTube comments), or the physical writing down of the words onto some physical medium. The only "skills" involved in writing the actual words themselves are basic reading comprehension, grammar, and spelling, but a good speech to text program (such as the one I am using right now) can alleviate the need for those a lot. But I don't hear anyone unironically arguing that the books writers write shouldn't be considered art, or that the writers of the words of the book shouldn't be celebrated. In fact: people often (unrightfully) raise books without pictures or heavy formatting above _all_ other mediums. (I can't be the only one to have watched PSAs and episodes of cartoons that encouraged kids to read, and praised books to be better than other mediums.) There's a reason why proofreaders are not considered to be as important as the writer. Proofreaders are incredibly important, as they save time looking for grammar mistakes and misspellings that the writer can use to actually write, and they should be credited, but most would agree that they're of lesser importance then the writer themselves. Many may argue an art director is more like a proofreader, and in many cases that may be correct, _but_ the difference is where the ideas and concepts come from. With my book example: all of the conceptual stuff (arguments, story arcs, nice sounding sentences, etcetera) is done by the writer, while the proof reader only makes minor adjust (as in correcting grammar and spelling mistakes) to clarify those ideas and concepts (which I'll just call "vision" from here on). An art director can be the source of the vision, or it can be the guy who just clarifies the vision, it all depends on the individual and the project. So there would be a sliding scale of art directors that rang from being more equivalent to proofreaders to more equivalent to writers, and everything in between. This is probably why art directors don't get the recognition they deserve: because it's hard to tell which ones deserve recognition. When it comes to the creatives who physically make the thing: you can tell if they're a high end or a low end by looking at the results. When it comes to directors of films, games, etc: the output can only be truly great if all the pieces work together in harmony, and with multiple creatives doing different things, that can only realistically be done with good leadership, no so it's reasonable to assume the director is responsible. When it comes to game design: it doesn't matter how good the programmers are, if the design of the mechanics aren't great and don't work together, which is the responsibility of the game designers. And when it comes to writing: how well written stories and/or arguments are would obviously come down to the writer. But a piece of art with a director who put in a lot of time and effort to get the peace just right and a piece of art where the director basically no input can look the same, so it's hard to know where the vision came from, which is just as, if not more important than the actual physical act of creation. And I think this is why I have such a big problem with most anti AI arguments, and why I came up with the Magic Art Helmet thought experiment: because to me, the vision is the essence of creativity, and the physical methods of creating it like drawing, sculpting, and 3D modeling are just means to the end of manifesting the vision. Don't get me wrong: the physical aspect of drawing is something worth celebrating, but in the same way one would celebrate being able to lift a lot or run really fast is. Character design, environment design, composition, art style (which is both vision and physical creation, in a sense), those are the types of things that make art art. But the actual physical components of producing art, the stuff you put emphasis on, and clam makes AI art not real art, that is not the things that make art art, those are the things that make art sport. And sport is objectively just as valid as art, but I'm a fan of art, not of sport. And that's why I seriously don't blame anyone for not getting as far into this video as I have: this idea of the vision of art versus the physical creation of art is at the core of Shad's philosophy on AI art, and you have yet to even acknowledge it. And that's probably why it doesn't even feel like you've made any arguments this entire time: because instead of addressing the core issue, all you do is bring up random observations that have nothing to do with it, state your own position without justifying it, or show clips of other people's positions who also don't justify them. I don't think I'm going to write a more scathing indictment of every aspect of this video that has nothing to do with the title, so I'm just going to stop commenting until you get to the part where you actually justify the title of the video. (Which I'm probably going to have to watch tomorrow, because I've already spent too much time watching this garbage.) This is a very bad video, and you're probably a very bad writer.