Raw LLM Responses

The problem I have with your first argument, which i've seen used a lot in this debate, is that the "connection" between artist and audience, is a reconstruction, an illusion if you will, happening entirely in the audience's head. You have no real way of knowing the intent behind the artist's choices, and for the vast majority of art you absorb, you don't even know nor care to know. In your "Infinite Love" example, that might as well been a phrase the artist asked ChatGPT to come up with for his bio, but the important part is: In your head canon, it isn't. In other words, it's all just a perception issue, of who tells the most compelling and suggestive story around the piece (real of not), which of course goes against the idea of separating art from artist, or death of the author. And the narrative around a piece of art, becomes simply part of the piece itself (always has been, of course, that's why we have so much silly gossip about how this or that was made). AI generated art is a narrative too cold to intrigue most people today, but that is a cultural hangup that could change in the future, as these tools enter our daily life more and more; not to mention most people who stan AI generated art, stan it in the context of it being used by people as a tool, which would just mean having to create a compelling narrative around the creative process for those "AI artists". Not exactly something unthinkable, since already we have beloved artists using samples, photo bashing, etc.