Raw LLM Responses

I've been a people pleaser for a good chunk of my life...and for me, it never meant anything beyond this idea that I'm not worth anyone's time, unless maybe if I focus on myself first and foremost. This in turn made me focus on things that I do have control of; I committed to learning how to make gestures when I was at a low point, even though it seemed impossible for me—what made all the difference was how much it personally mattered despite not knowing what I was doing. ... And how typical of people to be calling a nobody like me an elitist or "truth peddler" when I’m really trying to learn stuff (not just about art, mind you, but sometimes other people as well), but not giving those names to gurus aiming to have a monopoly, with how much they like to brag about the way the world should be, and whose only connections to people are "data" that they may or may not acquire with people's informed consent—mob mentality is often degenerative... As I've mentioned, I remember one person saying that artists should be working for their love of it and not for money – can you imagine how many people would "love" to hate their jobs if hating it is considered good reason to be payed? Too bad your boss doesn't care, but in the end being compensated is the artist's choice; who are you to be saying that people don't deserve to be compensated for their efforts, otherwise rewarding merit in their own terms makes them elitists according to...whatever your definition of an elitist is? But if you want to argue that art is not as "useful" as, say, preparing food, and that you've decided that it's too expensive for your blood, then I suppose every product not essential to our survival should also never be payed for... It's not like we can really agree on any objective sum suitable for art and putting a price tag on something that is personal—and suddenly, what does that make you?... It’s either peoples’ prices and their terms, or else we get situations in which they say you are greedy or applying exclusiveness to things that are neither special nor exclusive to you. _"The problem is people are trying to apply specialty and exclusiveness to things that are neither special nor exclusive to them. we used think fingerprints were all unique, but new science is suggesting their more similar then we thought. further proving my point."_ See? We don't deserve anything, apparently—not even respect, no matter how hard we work for it. Originality is not a measured science—it's a human concept. Moreover, people should realize that when we communicate something, we are not looking to be similar or different from everything else. What really matters is whether or not we MEAN what we communicate. That's what makes it special... So, people don't care about individuality, and yet they don't seem to care about unity, either. All that matters these days is what group you're in, what you have to say about politics, and "winning" an argument, be it in court when companies can afford to hire teams of lawyers, when people conflate laws and ethics, and judges don't always know what to think of either tech or art. I can't even study an open-source system like Linux without someone telling me that I'm a communist or part of some kind of cult! And whenever I get told "no one can take away your expression, but getting paid is a different question"... it's all nothing but devaluation disguised as sharing my values and caring about my passion, which I've become sick of letting myself be manipulated over. I would rather stay in my corner than to waste time on people who can't really see me in what I make. Bring up the topic of money and this is the treatment you get. But even so, I'm just a utilitarian resource that people use and consume just like a grinding machine—so much for being a celebrity, performer, popular writer or whatever... even trying to make me believe that I should be happy to be useful or to have an algorithm be optimized on me. So then, what a surprise to see them worry about being useless and struggle to find meaning in a hypothetical world of robots being more intelligent than they are. Their words, not mine. And if art looks too easy to be made? Then...they should do it themselves. People tell me that I don't own information (which they will repurpose to fit their "transformative" narrative time and time again) when they don't own what automation generated... And so, is the distinction between manual and automation really just a matter of "zeitgeist"? Ridiculous. "But society has long been lost in automation" disregards completely the idea of knowing what to automate in the first place. Making it seem like something was made with INTENTION when it was in fact AUTOMATED is always dishonest and antithetical to learning anything. So, why don't we raise an eyebrow whenever we use computers? – Because we have an implicit knowledge of what is automated (most of the time), but when you have models generating timelapses of illustrations, it's rather obvious why anyone would want to use them. For the record, I wonder what people have been doing whenever they pick up a physical pen or a brush for extended periods of time despite society continuously and subliminally telling them to not bother, like they don’t even matter to these other people, but let people in tech keep making light of them, for it shows just how much they care. It's why I firmly believe that no illustration made with "A.I." should be posted alongside other illustrations made with programs not using accelerated algorithms—the same thing applies to people using digital programs and not posting things made with it in traditional art spaces, no matter how "traditional" they look. (And no, don't try to justify it with tags.) When people are treating it like nothing but a matter of zeitgeist to which everyone else must ADAPT, it's painfully irritating to watch people worrying over whether robots are going to take over the world... This stupid propaganda has to stop, to expose the individuals behind the machines, and we should come up with different naming conventions that don't make abstraction of our intelligence or humanity... Some things are just not meant to be used against other ones in some kind of competition, because you would be implying that you can do or know better than someone else when that is not true. But no matter what, I agree that no one should have any business optimizing technology on someone else without their informed consent. ... Not to mention how much of a danger to privacy and truth accelerated algorithms represent.