Raw LLM Responses

Miðgarðsormr Apophis Usually, art pieces made by an actual human artist have much more accuracy to their mental picture than they would ever get from AI, so while not a perfect 1:1, it is still much closer than just promot typing. Then I see you decided to follow the argument that "AI is an artist, and therefore deserves the credit of the ownership and creation for it" line of thought. Also, I *do* know that animals make tools with localized characteristics and some species have other traces of what can be considered culture. And I do acknowledge them as culture and even art too. So I don't really know why you're coming up that I made _those_ arguments. Oh, well. Probably my bad for not being all that clear. But in any case, good. At least you are coherent. However, we then still have a LOAD of other issues to discuss regarding AI and AGI. Skipping the entire issue with people very easily abusing this technology for the worse which you seem to agree on with me based on your other comments, for starters, how do we make the distinction that it is actually sentient or showing signs of sentience or that we are even *_close_* to that? As analogous to the human learning process as it may be, an AI entrapped into a digital space doesn't experience the physical world like we do with the general life experience of a common human being (or even an _animal)_ to also draw its inspirations from. Unlike organic beings, computers and machines are EXTREMELY deterministic and predictable and barely to not at all sensible to external stimuli to influence their thought process and even their "personalities". They are _extremely_ specialized and the more versatility you try to give it to do a wide range of tasks and cognitive processes that closely resemble that of a human mind, the more extraordinarily expensive and logistically impractical it will become to both construct and maintain. We haven't even come close to replicate an ant's nervous system electronically, even less that of a flatworm (well, we actually did it with a flatworm once, but the results were... very mixed and advancements stopped right there. And it was a decade or so ago). In fact, in an AI was truly able to have a human's thoughts and emotions, and thus become an AGI, it would have to become so generalized that it would lose its ability to make art in a matter of seconds like it does right now unless we have a power source powered by the Sun itself to sustain it, at which point it would not even be an AGI anymore, but an ASI, which is a technology many centuries ahead of us. In any case, whether it can be considered as truly "art" made by the computer and whether it presents traces of sentience and emotion are my lesser concerns. I'm less worried about whether a machine can have actual human thoughts and emotion and whether it what it makes can truly be considered "art" and more worried about people using it to spew out shovelware-like content and entirely ruin cultural expression the same way (and I CANNOT believe I'm gonna draw this silly, but also quite apt comparison) memes are killed by normies spamming them all over the place and ruining all the meaning it once had. AI art will most likely turn most aspects of human culture into a trivial commodity of instant gratification to be cOOnsOOmed and devoid it of any meaning it would have had otherwise. It's the entire "photography" hysteria of the 1800's, but on steroids and this time *actually valid* because it can be mass spammed globally by the trillions and is outright *_indisinguishable_* from human made works and thus impossible to be separated into its own niche like photography eventually became. Though I hope I'm wrong. And it's at this moment that I thank the skies for chossing to be a writer first instead of a visual artist.