Raw LLM Responses

​@JUICYbluepanda2 sorry, i meant playing a game and skipping everything until you're at the end also before you reply, i'll explain what she meant by "intent" because this is her most important point. i apologize for the walls of text you're about to see ai removes the sense of wonder because you won't know which parts the prompter actually intended to be there. even if you know the prompt and the image is apparently as close to what the prompter intended, you'll never feel the same as when you look at human art, because the prompter has limited control. the human may guide the ai, but in the end the ai's logic, randomness, and training data is what creates the final result and that disconnect means you never know if that's the actual image the prompter had in mind (for example the prompter could've just given up and went "good enough it's close anyway"). meanwhile with human art every single stroke, every single color, every single choice is put with intent and you know that the artist put that there. even if the prompter says it's exactly what they had in mind, you will never know if they are telling the truth or misremembering. you'll NEVER know what was in their mind. with human art, the artist is giving you a clear piece of their mind, their *soul.* you know that the artist put *every* detail there, from big to small. *this* is what soul in art means and why people call ai soulless if your kid made a pretty shitty drawing of your family, the truth is that it's pretty shitty, but you don't want to hurt their feelings so you hang it up on the fridge. a few years pass and when they move out you'll be wishing they were a kid again and you'll cherish that drawing even if it's bad by your standards. if ai made it it's just a shitty drawing. who made it, how it was made, etc, it all matters. if you found out the art you had in your bedroom was made by a genocidal maniac who killed millions, it would change how you feel about it, right? art is inherently emotional, ai strips it of that (READ THE PREVIOUS PARAGRAPHS). most ai art isn't art there are exceptions for me though, if people use ai in a way that is ethical and retains the love and emotional aspect, yes, i'd call it art. look at neuro and synthv, synthv uses ai to enhance the voices but you have way more control over it, you can still make a great song with synthv. for example, jamie paige's birdbrain at 2:24, you can absolutely feel the emotion and intent behind it. neuro's cover of machine love wouldn't be as special as it is if it weren't for the community pouring their love into it of course if you say you poured your heart into an ai generated image i'd respect that, however, as i said before, you have way less control over ai generated images. while you can tune the voices the way you like with synthv, you can't do that when generating ai images, you can write a 500 page long prompt, but you'd still have less control than if you did it yourself. i would never know if a prompter actually poured their heart and soul into an ai piece, because it isn't clear. when i look at an ai piece i assume that the artist behind it did pour their soul into it, but when i find out it's ai it becomes unclear, and with the way people use ai now i'd assume they didn't. i'd only know if you told me, and by that point it's still unclear because (read first paragraph). with human art, there is no uncertainty, no doubt, that the artist *intended* for every detail of course these walls of texts probably won't be enough to change your mind, but it can at least give you insight and a new perspective on why people dislike ai