Raw LLM Responses

I think you’ve perfectly illustrated my thoughts on AI and the counter arguments I’ve seen AI bros make. Art has always been about the process of translating your ideas into a chosen medium and improving at that process; the journey matters as much as, if not more than, the destination. Every single action you take in the process of making a piece has intention and thought behind it. The process is what gives art its humanity, it’s what makes it fun, it’s what makes it *art*. There’s nothing to appreciate about a generated image, the reasons for its details are self evident, and there is no thought or intent behind its creation. Using AI and calling yourself an artist is like calling yourself a weightlifter while lifting weights using a forklift. If AI were a tool, you would be able to make art of the same quality without it, but you can’t, because it’s a crutch. If AI were in any way like photography, it would be able to become its own form of art, but it can’t due to its parasitic nature. The problem that AI bros seem to have is that the destination is the only thing that matters to them; the aesthetic qualities of a piece matter more than the means of its creation and what it’s trying to convey. They see artists and craftsmanship as just a pesky middleman that should be cut out, and AI gives them the opportunity to do so. They don’t actually care about art or artists, and that’s why the ethics of generative AI and the quality of what it produces will always be secondary to me, because I simply do not want to live in a world where it’s normalized for art and creativity to be delegated to cold, mindless machines rather than humanity.