Raw LLM Responses

I just wanted to add... I'm actually for both forms of art - artist created and AI created. I see AI generation as a tool, just like a brush, knife, chisel etc. There *is* skill involved in crafting good prompts to get good results. What's important to understand here, though, is how much of the process is not your own work - as long as you can be honest about that part, I see little wrong in relying on the tool. An interesting add here, going back to my "tool" argument: AI-generated images/art can be part of the process: you can make something yourself first and then have the AI tool transform it somehow for you, and it'll be a lot more uniquely you than not having said input. On the flip side, you could *start out* with AI generated stuff, and then either mix multiple generated bits or just use the generated stuff as a *base* for your final product. In light of all of the above... yes, I do believe that simply plopping a prompt in and having the generation be the start-to-finish and calling it your art is dishonest. However, it can be a real effort-and-time saver for mundane things that maybe it wouldn't feel good to waste an artist's time for. It can also be an aid in the creative process, stirring your imagination - whether towards polishing the piece to an end result, or jump-starting your journey with elements you can mix into your final piece. The conversation regarding *how* AI has been trained for image generation is also an interesting one - is it plagiarism? is it fair use? Artists copy from each other, too (technique, ideas etc.) - so where does one draw the line? I've done both - drawn/painted/etched by hand and used AI to generate stuff for me. My take is, as long as we're responsible with it, why not have both?