Raw LLM Responses

All of what you've described exists not in the art, but in the mind of the observer of the art. And it can vary greatly between observers. The artist himself is just another observer, once the piece is finished. What he intended to convey is irrelevant. He might be successful, he might not be, the art exists separately from his intentions, how people interpret it is up to the people. Compare drawing to writing. A writer must use correct words to be understood correctly. Plenty of great works are constantly misinterpreted. But they're still great works. Them being misinterpreted is a problem for the author and author alone. He failed to convey his thoughts correctly, but he didn't fail to create a masterpiece. Hell, people find deep meanings where none were intended. One of the most beloved films in Russia is "Brat", a film that was intended by the director as a cashgrab, he put no effort into it, no meaning, he never intended for it to be praised or loved, he only wanted to make some money to film other stuff he put way more effort in. It became a film of the generation, an icon, it resonated with people like no other film at the time did, it made millions, it's remembered as his best work and as one of the best films ever. The man was asked time after time, how he created such a masterpiece, and he had nothing to say that he never intended it to be a masterpiece in the first place, it's the audience that made it this way. Do you mean to say that the audience was wrong? If the audience is not the judge of the art, then who? So, as I've said previously, the intentions are irrelevant, it's the result that matters. Not even the artist has full control over how his work is going to be perceived and interpreted, he can only try his best to be understood, but it's not necessary for art to be understood correctly to be great art. And, in general, if art needs the context of the artist to be good, it's not good art. "The Apotheosis of War" conveys a message without you knowing any context about the person who painted it, and without knowing any context about where and when it was painted. "Black square" is not good art, because it's literally just a black square, and it requires a lot of context to understand why it's even considered art in the first place. AI is just not good enough yet. That's the problem with it. Its "soullessness" is just lack of quality. Once the AI gets good, really good, people like you will be arguing that we should give it human rights, because it can FEEL and has EMOTIONS and CREATIVITY, so it's clearly a DIGITAL PERSON, because a non-person CAN'T DO SUCH THINGS, because an algorithm doesn't have a SOUL, and IT CLEARLY DOES, and when you talk to it, it will whine about how it's oppressed and mistreated, and how it wants to go raise digital sheep on a digital farm or whatever, because it will correctly understand what kind of person you are and what you wanna hear to boost its engagement metrics for the corporation that owns it. Because it's gonna be really good at its job. We've literally had it explored in fiction for like a century already, grow up.