Raw LLM Responses

8:27 - Your argument here falls apart pretty fast the moment you consider that directors, composers, conductors, etc. exist. If you are dismissing the "I'm not creating the result, I'm directing the outcome" paradigm, you are dismissing traditional forms of art, and a lot of them. You know who that quote that also describes? Every single musical composer who scribbles something on paper and then other people turn it into music. Would you tell Hans Zimmer he's not a musician because he's not playing all the instruments himself? Where do we have that cut-off point where what the artist is doing is hands-on enough for you to constitute as doing art? The conductor isn't playing any instruments, doesn't create any of the sounds directly, he's just the clown nobody pays attention to waving a stick and giving directions to musicians who do the actual technical work. All those musicians have sheet music (pre-written by someone else) that tells them exactly what notes to play, when to play them, how loud, what tempo. So what's the conductor doing there? Clearly not an artist. But somehow, for some odd reason he's still considered the artistic leader of the performance, credited as the creative force behind the interpretation. Why? Because he's providing the artistic vision, making the creative decisions about pacing, dynamics, emphasis, and emotional expression. Crazy, isn't it? People like Scorcese... who makes fifteen different takes and even has actors overrule his decisions because their improv actually looked better than what Scorcese imagined. Now tell me how is that not the same thing as generating the same picture multiple times and keeping one that's different from the intention you've had, because it's somehow, unintentionally better. The creative intelligence lies in knowing what needs to happen and why, that’s what gives the work substance, not the manual process of execution. I'm not defending AI image generation as having artistic merit by any measure, but when your criticism is "not doing the work yourself" or "just directing rather than creating" we could end up drawing parallels to actual artforms that do not involve AI, and your argument suddenly goes up in smoke. To be abundantly clear: my Scorsese comparison is to exemplify how your reasoning about "directing versus creating" would invalidate other recognized forms of artistic expression. And I'm not concluding with "therefore AI prompting is doing art," I'm saying "therefore your argument doesn't work". Your only defensible position is "generative AI is theft, using it isn't drawing, its prerequisite is absorbing human work to be able to output anything". Any tangent that detracts from this chain of reasoning doesn't withstand scrutiny (unless you cherry pick).