Raw LLM Responses

While AI "art" isn't really art, it's not because it can't compete, because while AI isn't sophisticated enough to reliably deviate from norms to make something that is representative of an individual rather than the average right now, doesn't mean it's theoretically impossible. Given enough time and investment AI could most likely reliably create art that seems human, and at some point it might as well be because the technology might be a true AI that is a conscious moral agent in the far future, which would make anything that it designates as art be art as it is an individuals illustration. Of course at that point I doubt such a powerful AI would spend it's time conforming to humanities ideas of art, if it even engages with the subject in the first place. A reliable way to think about it is that art requires an artist and the AI we use today isn't an artist because it's not a person, there is no sentience or sense of self which is what distinguishes it from an artist. Although the AI itself could definitively be considered art by it's creator and the things the AI is capable of can certainly be impressive or beautiful, but not because the AI's product is art, but because the AI itself is an expression of human creativity and imagination that created it. Which is the definition of art. However that doesn't mean that there is some sort of difference that can't theoretically be ironed out and specialized enough so that the product of an AI is indistinguishable from actual art, because the very nature of reality dictates that any event has definite cause and effect, which means technology that is sophisticated enough to not be distinguishable by your definition is objectively possible. What we believe to be meaning is as flexible as reality itself, which means that a sophisticated enough algorithm or technology that is able to create an equal amount of "meaning" is not only theoretically possible, it is objectively so. Why anyone would go so far to do so is another subject and to be clear I'm not advocating for the replacement of humans as the main contributors, I'm saying that arguing that there is some visible or distinguishable way that AI art as less meaningful is pointless because 1. It is only true right now, not theoretically impossible and 2. Because arguing that something that isn't made by humans isn't art, when art is in itself defined as being a product of human ingenuity is just arguing in circles.