Raw LLM Responses

@ihaveanimeprofilepicsoisma3044 Don’t put words in my mouth, because I never made any sort of claim that you like abstract art or have any opinion on it. You must’ve read that and decided to ignore all prior context & go the literal route, because I have no idea how you could’ve misunderstood what the point was otherwise. I said “people with your mentality”, that is not a claim on you, that is a generalization of people who have the same opinions as you. I thought you were coming off as rather defensive and hostile in the first response, that’s why I scoffed at what you said at the end, because it felt like a dismissive motion to ignore whatever came next. Phrasing should probably become one of your priorities. The AI is not sentient, so of course it cannot be traditionally “creative”, but you also can’t be so strict on the definition of what is and isn’t creativity. If a bot can’t be creative, and I’d even agree that it couldn’t in the more traditional sense, it shouldn’t be able to produce results that would be otherwise unexpected. Creativity breeds uncertainty, and uncertainty breeds surprise. If you’ve even been surprised by what an AI has made, aka, it’s not predictable or it’s hard to predict the outcome of what will be made, the bot has expressed a level of creativity. For the sake of clarity, because you seem more than likely to misinterpret that too, you don’t need to have perfect prediction skills in order to think of something as creative or not, but if the AI is not creative as you claim, the works it produces should be fairly easy to imagine in your own mind, since they’ll be generic, dull, uninspired, or something else. I used photoshop as an example to call out the logic you were using because you didn’t articulate your position very well. So you’re arguing that, if a bot references, the result is a piece that lacks meaning? That’s absurd, because the bot only generates pieces in accordance to what the user wants, there is already predetermined and inherent value to each piece it creates, and hence has meaning. The process of creating art, no matter how easy or hard it is, doesn’t change the value of said piece, that’s other people interpreting a higher level of value because another human put a lot of time and effort into creating the art. It’s the same concept as if you were to build a house yourself vs if you hired a construction company to build the exact same house. People will say the house you built yourself is more valuable because you’ve made it a more personalized process by taking on a larger amount of effort to accomplish your goal, as to where if you hired a construction company to build it, people might say it’s valuable because you’ve invested a lot of money into it, but otherwise it isn’t viewed as something special because the only thing you’ve invested is money. AI doesn’t cut corners, it learns the same way you or I do, it just does this at a much faster pace because it has a higher efficiency in learning. AI has to practice before it can create a result that is acceptable, which is what the training data is for. If you perceive value in effort, AI is by far putting in more effort, because it has to rearrange every single pixel on the canvas to create an image, one by one, and construct something randomly that matches a prompt, and it keeps doing this until the outcome is as close to “acceptable” as possible (it does this at incredible speeds). Just because you don’t see the process, you’re devaluing the final result. I didn’t mesh what you said with another group of ideas, you hardly gave me anything to respond to and so I made assumptions and attempted to explain myself by using other views I’ve seen as a means to that end. Just to be clear, you’ve already contradicted yourself, but now you’re saying that something like Spider-Man: Into the Spider-verse is not as creative as, let’s say for example, a fan-made drawing of a Spider-Man character? Because the movie uses AI to enhance the artistic direction that the team was going for and successfully makes the movie feel more unique visually and wonderfully compliments the art direction. If someone’s established process of making art includes using AI, is that not something you see as less valuable, even though you just said that’s the type of art you’d value more? There’s loops in your logic and it still just doesn’t make sense.