Raw LLM Responses

@TeaIngyer I’d agree if you’d argued photography is better because it captures real-world phenomena, a ground-truth or result of the real world that's hard if not impossible to represent by a program. I think arguing that intention is always lacking from "fake art" is hyperbolic. True, there are some that use prompts which aren't even three words in length, or worse, copy hundreds of tokens from someone else. As with many things though, that's only some people, not all. If we can agree that intention means an "idea that you plan (or intend) to carry out", why would executing that intention via software somehow make it no longer an intention that was executed? Would a child be told, ‘You didn’t mean to make that tiger—delete it,’ after making one with AI? No, a good parent would let the kid enjoy the animation for what it is, a cool animation. I feel like what you were really arguing was that traditional art is, on average, more time consuming. We know from the human experience, though, that something is almost always judged for what it is, not the time spent behind it. Certainly, it's not criticized by most on how it was made, if the quality is good. If two kids both make a perfect score on a quiz—one after 80 hours of practice, the other after 4—does the faster one's result count less if replicable for the same length of time? 𝗡𝗼, the result matters more than the time invested. …[U]nlike AI fake art, I almost don’t know where to begin with this last part. "Art" is one of the most diluted terms in all of human history. There are some who pay millions for paint that was quite literally thrown on a canvas and—yeah, they might call it "art"—because it helps them with tax evasion. With the same piece of "art", some consider it so because, when they look at it, they see something their minds dream up or had buried; maybe that external experience could be art for some. However, people appreciate art—any medium or tool—so long as it’s not just a Rorschach blot.