Raw LLM Responses

Although I agree with DM on many issues, I must disagree with a few or ask for a rethink. First things first: Generative AI is NOT a tool. It is, by its very nature, a SERVICE. This definition clarifies the relationship between Prompter, the machine, and the work, and why no authorship and thus no artistically relevant work can arise here. This definition has also been repeatedly confirmed by the Copyright Office. Of course, someone can still produce images using generative AI, but since, by definition, they have done no more than write a briefing, the artifact will never be the result of an original creative activity. Since generative AI is a service, all comparisons with other media such as photography fall short and argue in the wrong direction. Just because I explain to a hammer how to hammer a nail into the wall doesn't mean anything happens. Comparisons with art, especially the art market, are tiresome. Art does not take place in a historical vacuum. And no, it is not only since modernism that what I see is not what is meant, or that meta-themes permeate the work. One should be familiar with art history before commenting on it—as with all topics, really. Even Cattelan's “Comedian” is an artistic double volte-face that cannot be deciphered at all without an understanding of art history. And yes, there is good and bad art. However, this is NOT a subjective decision, but rather the result of complex processes in the cultural sphere of meaning. The only subjective aspect of enjoying art is personal taste, but this in turn has no significance in terms of the historical and social value of art. Using ableism as an argumentative shield is a perfidious move that shows no respect for those affected. Since it has already been clarified that prompting has no creative substance whatsoever, the argument of ableism further demeans the achievements of people with disabilities who create works by other means.