Raw LLM Responses

@mekingtiger9095 I always think of photography as outdoors but there could be an argument that yes you control the lighting and vibe in a photo, but only indoor shots with zero nature-based variables. Outdoors, that sun was always pre-destined to be in that position, and we don't control where the wind blows, we don't control how each plant grows. It's like every moment of every day is just a slightly different prompt and seed. Further to your point about not knowing what is in a novel someone generated. There are definitely real photos in my own collection where long after the photo is taken I notice a feature/object/person in the photo and I didn't even realize. I mean if I went out to take a photo of a deer what control do I have over that situation besides, location, camera config, and being quiet? To generate that photo instead I don't have to be quiet. And I can put that deer on Mars or Antarctica. I just saw an article where a guy wanted a photo of a bird diving into water and he apparently took more than a million photos specifically trying to catch that. Sounds very similar to typing in a prompt and trying a million seeds. He still couldn't even control what angle the bird is diving at or anything. None of this addresses the fact I already mentioned; that cameras and phones already have AI built in to make your photo pretty. So where's the line? How much interference is your camera already doing? What level of meddling means that photos taken with <specific camera model> are considered generative AI and who's tracking that so bullies can call those photos slop too? Again mentioning that cellphones have lenses to pick up details the human eye can't even detect, northern lights being a prime example. So what human saw the dark purple in the northern lights and decided to take a photo? None, because we can't see in that spectrum. But magically a photo of northern lights with colours we can't even see is "art" because it was an iPhone. Further to the point of AI built into cameras and phones, what if I use a real photo I took ("art") and use that as the latent image feeding into AI? Surely if my phone doing that is still art then when I manually take the long way around it must still be art. I guess you're kinda right about Neurolink but given the "AI art isn't real art" grief already I would argue that Neurolink users aren't actually thinking, they become not-real people once it's installed. Just to reiterate that statement, if AI enhanced art is not real then AI enhanced humans are not real either. If my songs and the music videos are slop then any ideas processed by Neurolink are slop too.