Raw LLM Responses

Not very articulate but I'll try my best. On the subject of how AI generates its images and the dismissal you seemed to show for it as not being creative. The generator and the discriminator engine sounded remarkably similar to how a human being composes... pretty much anything. You have an idea of what you want the piece to look like, generation, and you know what you don't want to do with it, discrimination. During the video I was watching several pieces of art being made and I noticed that you were using reference pieces as a guide, much like the AI do to generate their images. The process, while being carried out by a machine, is very organic in that way. Creative in a human way, where we bounce ideas between our left and right brains to make something that is not only expressive but logically consistent. But that creativity is limited to the inputs we have received in life. You can't draw a sports car unless you've seen one before after all. The fact that the AI is also pulling from its knowledge base shouldn't devalue the accomplishment of its creations. You must remember that despite how technically proficient these AI seem to be, they are still in the infantry of their development. As more images get added to the database then the issues they have with generating complex biology will disappear. Muck like a baby recognizes that the large giant figures that feeds and cleans them are their parents. Concerning the idea that this technology won't replace artists, specifically the idea that a company will spend comparatively the same or more for these AI works. I think you have overlooked something rather large in making this statement, in that you seem to be assuming that these companies will be using the AI as they are right now. What I think will happen is that Disney, or one of the other six content creators, will get the program and then put their own databases of images. Think of all the animation studios that have been closed down because of how expensive it is to make such shows. They could input say all of the Simpson art into the AI and then churn out an episode within a week that is visually consistent. Because you have to remember that the image generating is just the ground floor of this technology. When you start combining it with programs that do transitional work. And then get a modeling program to turn those into animations then you have just nearly all cartoonist jobs. A team of say a hundred artist have now been reduced to a team of five to make sure the machines don't screw up. My personal view on AI art is that it will open up the art community to those that don't have the fine motor skills or the "artistic eye" to get their ideas out into the world. The simple reality is that there are simply not enough "Professional Artist" to help those who require their services to get their projects off the ground. The flip side is that these AIs are only as good as the images they can reference so I can see companies using the AIs to do, let's call it legacy cartoons, while human artist are used to create new Intellectual Properties. If a company can whittle down their budgets for proven IPs then they will free up cash to take risks with new ideas. And while this sounds like it might contradict what I said about this technology putting people out of work you must understand that it won't put "Creatives" out of a job. It will put those people who were hired to maintain the status quo out. I guess I'll leave off with the question of whether or not AI can make art. The short, definitive, answer is yes. If you strip all of the lingo and subjective language from the issue, then denying the works produced by AI is the same as denying all art created on commission. Because at the end of the day that is all the AI can do. It is a machine that sits idle until prompted into action. It is skill and technique divorced from passion, yet it can make works that inspire the emotion in others. So, I guess in a very real way these machines aren't "artists" so much as they are "Muses". Sorry for the ramble. But the topic was interesting. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.