Raw LLM Responses

Just to be clear, neural learning and generative algorithms aren't real AI. AI would be an artificially created consciousness. AI in how we use the term nowadays isn't that. I think it's monstrous that we're broadly willing to accept that art, the nonverbal communication of thoughts and feelings in the abstract from artist to audience, can be performed by something that cannot conceptualize thoughts, feelings, or the abstract, is fundamentally hollow and unhuman. Or to put it another way: Art must be created with intention, even modern art with its embrace of chaos and subversion has intent. The difference between the stone washing ashore and the stone being set ashore is meaningful. There is nothing artful about the rain, the sky, the sea, or the stone that gets washed ashore- even if it is beautiful, cannot be art. Yet an animation of the rain, a painting of the sky, a photo of the sea, and a stone being set ashore all features that quirk of human intent. That makes it art. No matter how good you get at writing a prompt to an AI it will ALWAYS strip away intent. I cannot imagine what the AI prompt was thinking with each brush stroke, the perspective, and choice of color because the brush stroke was synthesized from a computer algorithm which had generated it based on a glorified search engine keyword. It is sincerely unhuman. I don't know if we have an eternity of paradise waiting for us at the end of all things, but I know one thing beyond all else. AI "art" is the murderer of humans souls. Sorry for the paragraphs, but I just feel a cold chill whenever I see someone on the fence about AI art. I feel like I need to plead with as many people as possible as to not let this environment killing commodity erase the meaning of art. As a little addendum I do think that if we were to ever create a truely artificial intelligence then that specific version of AI could create art. Intelligence begets things like intent after all.