Raw LLM Responses

@EFYN For me the bare minimum is full creative control in the operation. Just because you can take a picture well without any knowlege of how a camera works doesn't mean you can't look it up and become intimately aware with how it works. Every part of a camera can be used as part of the creative process. With AI it's a black box like I said previously. You don't know how it works, and even if you wanted to, the best you could get is a vague understanding of the technology used. (Lord knows i've tried with chat GPT, I hate this tech but i'm also fascinated by the problems it's bringing up). My personal soft line for respecting AI art as a sincere form of critical expression (my better word to use than trying to define something as broad as art. Philosophers have driven themselves mad trying to answer this with no answer.) is that an AI learning model would have to be completely open source. No hidden anything. I could see a world where artists can use this tool to aggregate art they've asked permission to use to make something potentially unique. (I think we're far off on that). It's not a hard and fast rule and maybe AI art generation will evolve to be less toxic to the overall art community. I will admit there's been a few AI generation projects that have caught my attention as being a creative use for the software (Loab comes to mind). Tl;dr Ai art could be a tool for creativity, but as it stands right now, the technology is not there yet and with the aggressive push for AI tech by business people and not artists and engineers who make the tools artists use, we might never get there.