Raw LLM Responses

It's use case. If someone is paying for something, they do not care about how it is made, only end result. Take a look at everything in your home and tell me that it's not the same. And we could argue that art is a different thing, but is it really? Is a couch, table, chair or piece of tech not designed, conceptualized not only for use, but also aesthetics? Especially something like furniture. We don't bother or more appropriately, have the time, resources or money to learn these things to custom design them ourselves. The mark of a wealthy person is that they get a lot of things bespoke. So, yes. We all have a goal or use case for something. If someone doesn't care about doing something from scratch, then why bother? Why make a complex meal when you don't have the ingredients, know how or tools to do it in a way you know it should taste? That's why people pay others for things. Now it's being directed at AI. And the advantage there is even more customizability with out needing to be wealthy for something bespoke. if we get to a point of AI mixed with robotic creations, you could custom make a chair/couch/piece of tech yourself in the design phase and have an AI/robot actually make it for you, usually with a far lower price tag and a lot less time. Finally, yes, a lot of people are too poor/broke to actually have anything made custom, in or outside of art. More than half the world is poor/lower class. If there was more income equality, this might be a less common argument. I'd also contest that creative works shouldn't need price tags and that living should be a right and no one should have to worry about making a specific art piece instead of exploring their own thing as they see fit (and this goes for major entertainment industries. Art shouldn't have a price tag, from film, book, music whatever in my book.), but that's a comment on society and our system and not the more narrow/specific sector being spoken of in the AI art debate/argument sphere.