Raw LLM Responses

I feel like the hole in your analogy here is that I never get to question the artist, and the source of truth is in most classical cases forever unknowable. As a fellow artist, you've no doubt had feedback where someone particularly enjoyed the way a part of your piece looked, and you keep your poker face on because you full well know that "design choice" was the result of you making the best of an error. You didn't *intend* anything about it - but here someone is saying "I think you're trying to show this". The curtains are blue because it was on your palette and covered the underpainting well, or you ran out of a shade of green but could salvage the work by pivoting - but there they are telling you how sorrowful your curtains are, a veil on the world depicting an inner sadness purposefully drawn to keep joy out (this may be a continuation of my gripe with English Lit and the poem "Island Man", but the point stands). If the truth of the matter is unknowable - what's the difference? If the machine is the culmination of millions or real art pieces - what does the presence of that mark say about humanity and art? Why not turn the spotlight inwards and examine the mark from how it makes you feel. When Warhol hung that block print of Campbell's Soup in a gallery alongside fine art that was the culmination of a lifetime's work - the art wasn't so much the block print, but the outrage that such a thing could exist in this space. The art world's rejection of AI art parallels this so precisely it's difficult not to enjoy it just a little bit. Though I will acquiesce that Warhol was pushing on the establishment, and AI is pushing on the artists in order to cash in - they are different in meaningful ways, just with common threads. I have a lot of reservations about AI - mostly because it is being grossly missold to the public (software developer by day here, have at least one solid qualification in working with generative models), and as such I'm often being wrangled into projects where AI is considered to be a reliable source of truth, and that it isn't a data storage security risk. We're not mature enough as a species to have this technology, and we need to grow up quickly because we're already using it to create perfect maps of brains (fruit fly) that can reliably predict the behaviour of an organism. If that capacity doubles each year in line with Moore's Law, I'm terrified that corpos like Neurolink will get to say how the approach that makes them the most money is the most ethical way - just like petroleum firms did, and still do, with pollution. I've lived through enough unprecedented times tyvm. Anyway - sorry for the tangent.