Raw LLM Responses

@alex-rs6ts Your example here doesn't work. Like just straight up doesn't work. First, nobody ever said you "had" to learn the skill to draw because others had learned it, they said the argument "not everyone can develop that skill" is false because everyone who draws has had, and has to, develop that that skill. Nobody is born a master of painting/drawing, everyone has to train and train and develop. You didn't refute that, you just said "I don't want to learn how to build a house because some other people knows how to do it." If that wasn't your intention, you need to formulate yourself better. Second, if you want to build a house then yes, _you have to learn how to build a house!_ It doesn't matter if others knows how to build a house as that's not going to help you build a house yourself. If you, not someone else, you want to make your very own house by your own resources and effort, you have to first learn how to do it or you wont get far. Same goes for art. If you want to draw, to paint, to create art by your own style, own hand, and own effort, you have to pick up the pen and start learning how to do it better. No, AI doesn't count, that's not your effort, that's not your style, that's not your resources, that's not your art. And you have a point, kind of, in that using AI is like a commission. But by making that argument, your counter falls flat. If we are to call using AI the same as paying for a commission, then that does not invalidate neither argument that AI "artists" are lazy, because they want the moniker of artist without putting in the effort to learn the art. It doesn't change that everyone who are _legitimate_ artists had to learn how to draw well and had to develop their artistic skills and style. As such, that you want to just pay someone else to do it for you is, at best, _patronage,_ not artistry. And at that point, why not just pay an _actual_ artist rather than a soulless machine? Just because it's cheap and fast? I mean, yeah, fast food is also cheap and fast, but it's also crap food so I suppose you get what you pay for in that case, but wouldn't you rather that the art is good? Has some class and merit to it? Isn't the beauty, the emotions invoked, the effort put in, and the merit what makes good art good? Not the price and time spent? And hey, if you pay an actual artist, you even get to contribute to someone's living, so you can even pat yourself on the back for that. So sure, you don't _have_ to learn how to draw/paint to have art. But you _have_ to learn how to draw/paint in order to _create_ art. And if you don't create art, you are not an artist. And again, using an AI to do it for you doesn't count. At best, that makes the AI the artist, and that's an insult to artists. Because everyone who is a _legitimate_ artist had to learn. And if they could, so could others. And you don't because you're lazy. Not because there is an "easier way." Yes, it is easier for me to just find an artist and pay them money to make me an art piece, but that doesn't mean I'm the next Picasso all of a sudden. Just like how if you pay a construction company to build you a house doesn't suddenly make you a carpenter. Stop making excuses for people being lazy. AI "artists" don't want art, they want the clout without the effort.