Raw LLM Responses

Yeah, I haven't paid much attention to the AI art thing, but that's about what I figured. It was eventually going to cross Disney lawyers. The way I see it; AI art's only value is novelty, and isn't worth pumping resources into unless there is some development that makes it more manageable on computing systems. There's also a simple art argument for why AI art doesn't count. The issue is: "what is the intent behind the image." You made the art history argument already but missed that point, I feel: the reason those trashy low-effort things were defined as art was the intent existing behind them. A challenge on the definition of art is nothing new in the art world. As I recall, Fountain was posted under a made-up name to a gallery that declared it would put up any art submitted. There is no point in evaluating the artistic intent of AI art; the intent was "the AI thought this is what the prompt should look like." There is no artistic merit in even looking at AI art, let alone trying to analyze it. And now thinking about this made me imagine an art competition that does a computer analysis on submissions, and quietly replace AI submissions with the original text prompt before displaying anything. Just a funny idea. More realistically, I just feel there should be an uptick in competitions that emphasize live-drawing on prompt, or only taking a canvas or physical piece.