Raw LLM Responses

​@evilcheetoz605 You make a good point. It is no easy task to classify something as art, since it is a very subjective concept. That being said, I would still say that I do not call AI Images or videos "art" because it lacks the intentionality of a living creature. Yes, there was intention in the creation of the machine and the prompt from the user, but I am talking about the specific image created by the machine. For example, every brush stroke in a painting was done by someone who intented to place that brush stroke (accidents do happen, but I am generalizing.) or each line on a drawing was intended to be there and for the purpose of resembling an object or place. Also, both intend to invoke a specific emotion. In AI pictures, the pixels were aligned by a machine in an order that mathmatically matches the words given by the user, not intentionally placing them for the purpose of creating an emotion. Its only job is to give an output given an input, while a human creates art for the purpose of invoking emotion (whether that be joy of the creator, or sadness of the viewer, etc) The machine has no concept of the feeling invoked by a picture in the same way a human does, since it only compares one dataset of words to another dataset of images (and probably a few others for connotations too) and will never have the capability to truly act as a human does for its own purposes. I would say that the main difference between an AI image and an image from a camera, despite both being pixels, is that the light created from a camera's pixels is just a "translation" of real light that would be visible to a person if they were in the same location at the same time, but an AI image uses pixels that do not represent a real place or real time (at least, not just one location). Also, similar to what I said above, the camera was used by a real person for the purpose of capturing that image. The camera has no other use than that. In contrast, if you could travel anywhere on earth in space and time with a camera, there is no single location that could recreate the same pixels as an AI image. Ok, yes, the same is true about digital drawings - but still, those are different from AI. Digital drawings are much like traditionally drawings, in that each part of it was placed intentionally for the purpose of representing a place or thing. Or maybe even to simply invoke an emotion. Summary: Calling AI images "art" seems like this scenario to me: I draw a line on my tablet, make it straight by holding down my pen, then call that line 'art' because the computer displayed my desired output when I told it to. Basically, art has to be greater than simply an output given an input.