Raw LLM Responses

I'm going to present an argument that I don't see many bring up. Let me posit a quesiton What part of creativity is a person? Take the situation of an artist being commissioned. The person sends an idea with specific desires/composition. If they are an artist themselves and know the terms, maybe they get even more hyper specific about it. Who is the creative in this scenario? Imagine this request is instead sent to an AI. I think most people might say the artist is the creative because they are doing the work to make the idea exist, but the entire reason the work exists is because of the person with the idea. The execution is on the one who makes it come to fruition and naturally, there is some of themselves put into the work. But in either case, the idea comes to be something, be it a collaborative work where one artist does the line drawing and idea and another does the color/lighting/rendering, or someone pays for an idea or requests it to be made from an artist, or you use an AI to explain what you want to make. I think there is an assumption that creativity is in some people and not in others. And while I do think some brains are more or less inclined to that medium than some, I do not think it's something that can't be learned. Everyone has imagination. Everyone has an idea. The more they learn about how that idea can exist, the more they have a chance to make it real. Even in an AI sphere alone, learning about how composition, terminology, lighting etc. can help you refine your ideas. This is why many non anti-ai artist groups have pointed out that being an artist gives them a huge leg up, because they know what to look for and they also know terminology, how to input a refined request, either to an AI or to even another artist in order to get the desired result or a lot closer to it. Most of the chatter in AI spheres where people are working on projects, mostly for fun, but some for profit, is more and more creative control. People aren't anymore happy that they get a piece that looks good, at least to either the general eye or actually is good (yes, there are lots of images that if you do not know or have a bias against it being generated are pleasantly aesthetic to look at. The amount of times I've seen people go "too bad this is AI" because they liked an image or erroneous attribute a fully human piece as AI because it was technically really well done is proof of this.) but isn't what they actually wanted. Prompt adherence and listening to directions as a director of a film, animation, drawing, musical composition etc. is huge in people who actually use generators, either local, through paid subs or whatever else. Most people making a creative work, regardless of the tools want it to be what is in there head. Either getting your hand to behave and listen to you when you want to make a smooth line, getting a digital program to do the affect you want when you custom make a brush, getting an AI to understand what you have in your head that you try to throw at it with words. It's the same core process. Trying to show someone a beautiful lake in your mind when all you have is a spoon to desperately chuck water at them with going "It's going to be great, just let me get it all out!" (This is paraphrased by a pinterest comment I saw on explaining the struggle of writing to try to get an idea out. I think it is super fitting to all creative endeavors because no one ever quite gets out what they imagine in their head.) I think we also need to live in a system where people do not feel like any creative work has to be incredible in order to make rent or even eat. I think monetary motivation in creative works kills the process of trying new things. Living should be a right afforded above other rights as a base right. And that's controversial enough from a temporarily embarrassed millionaire fallacy mindset. I think AI art hit people like a freight train because we all assumed that creativity expression was only available by human hands, even though we have digital art, photobashing, photography and film, none of which are the same as say crafting your own paints from bugs and plants and painting on a wall with your fingers. Tool usage always has gate keepers in everything, usually motivated by desire to make it a scarce commodity or talent because then it pays more to have a more specialized capability. The reality is, when people do have access to tech that lets them make their own films, shows, drawings, music, entertainment, why would they pay for someone else's? Especially because a huge portion of people making this will do it for free, especially due to the reduction of time/money/resources to make it vs now, where if you want to make a film, you need a camera, time, props, people, ideas, trial and error on a mass scale and that's at minimum for a crappy home video in 480p equivalent quality. Never mind if your goal is some form of societal validation with views/popularity or monetary compensation. People make creative works because they want to make creative works. When they have access to do so in whatever medium or avenue they like, you'll see a mass flood of people doing just that. A lot of the slop comes from the desperate gold rush race all this has become. People who want to make money on this is both depressing and laughable to me. But I've never thought that creative works should have set value. As a human expression of story, emotions, ideas, thoughts, contemplations, no matter the technical quality involved, from a child's stick figure with a typical smiley of their family to an extremely surrealist uncomfortable autistic driven in detail work that makes your skin crawl, all of it actually genuinely has value. All of it is expression. To me, the means in which to express that doesn't matter, which is why I do not care about AI usage, so long as the person cares about the end production. I'm also a person who draws and uses AI. I draw when I enjoy doing so. I use AI when I'm doing something that I either can't do or don't care to do that specific part of the work. To put it another way, if I'm working on color theory in art, I don't want to use hours to make a crappy linework to practice on. I'd use a predone base to work on the thing I want to work on. Same if I'm say coming up with a written story and want to generate characters for it instead of spend more time drawing them to whatever ability I happen to have, my focus is on writing their story. The portraits are a means to an end. And this is the case with lots of things and why we'd either pay someone else to do x part of a project or use an AI. Artists need to eat and pay bills, but my point is that I resent that this is a fact and find it very barbaric of society that this is the case. People should do any hobby, from traditional art, black smithing, leather, carpentry or digital drawing, AI prompting, or whatever because they enjoy doing it and it lets them work on the parts they enjoy. If you enjoy drawing or carving something from scratch, that's fantastic! if you enjoy painting figurines, but not making them from scratch, you should feel free and unjudged from buying predone ones. If you ever get an interest in doing both, feeling free to explore that is the mark to me of a healthy society that encourages exploration and creativity in all it's citizens. Anyway, yes, this is a super nuanced topic, but I wanted to bring up a plethora of points that I don't see often talked about or pointed out and share my view on it, because I know what a highly contested subject this is and how much disinformation, fear, hatred and sadness it's brought about that makes me sad.