Raw LLM Responses

⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠@Lemonblue3967 my pervious response addresses points 1 and 5 that you made. And I agree, there’s reasons to be upset knowing that an algorithm can “outperform” you. But, broadly speaking, algorithms have a history of outperforming us humans in many ways. The mathematicians have accepted it. The scientists have. In fact, they all wind up embracing it and the field as a whole progresses that much further. Eventually artists will learn to accept it too. For 2. In my opinion that’s symptomatic of the technological and artistic landscapes changing and coalescing. Can the panels running the competitions not adapt and require submissions to have some sort of documentation of the creative process? Why don’t we hold them accountable for not running a sound competition, when there’s ways for artists to nip this problem in the bud by doing a timelapse or submitting files with layers/proof of actual human work, or a mini field doc in cases of photography? When athletes get caught for using steroids, they get thrown out and disqualified. Can’t these competitions simply reject submissions without proof of human effort? For competitions with a large amount of submissions to handle, i don’t know, get a few more people involved in the panel? It can’t take a person too much longer to sift through submissions and be able to tell whether documentation is faked or not. People submitting lazy AI are not going to go through the effort of faking documentation. At least not well. (Edit; Also I apologize for the spam replies, I’m typing this on a phone and it’s hard to see your comment and reply at the same time)