Raw LLM Responses

@thewannabecritic7490 Very intersting point indeed, humanity's nightmare "When does a pile of sand become a pile of sand?", the truth is only when we decide so the problem is to define properly a threshold, not easy. but to me and the hours that i spend trying to understand how it works it look more like painting than reheating something in a microwave, especially if you coonsider the work need to improve it, i don't think that anyone can do that easily, so like other thing that is not easy it is paid. And also there is a real difference between talking about making an output with ai and making ai itself, all i say is making ai is not a theft, if we talk about skills requires for making images when using ai i am on your side, with a subtil nuance which is that i don't think that the value of art is skill but rather intentions, in a painting every stroke is an intention, every color etc... so it for sure has way more value than a prompt, one will need to at least make a novel to try to egual it and even then i'll tend to put more value in the novel that in the images generated from. If people are getting paid to use ai to create "art," then I'm more inclined to call it theft, though I don't think that's the best word either. That's why I said "keep discussing about what art really is, the beauty of effort, don't give them the possibility of shut down all of this, please". my only point is that the money they make is not for the output itself nor for the references used but for the work needed to make it , i don't defend ai art i only defend the flaws that really require attention, so if there is a conflation between talking about the ai "artist" and the ai itself it needs to be adressed because again "the advantage of truth is robustness".