Raw LLM Responses

The innate "soul" of art is such a stupid argument. There is nothing uniquely human about art. Don't believe me? Well let's break it down. Take a blind person who was born blind. They have never seen art, and therefore are incapable of stealing other's artworks. Could such a person learn to make art? In the typical sense, no, they could not. Someone who has never seen a house will be innately incapable of drawing one. Take any great historical painter and ask them to paint a picture of an Iphone, they will be unable to simply by the biases that they do not know what an I phone is. But then lets focus on a specific subset of art. Calligraphy. Can our blind person learn to draw calligraphy? Yes they can, by tracing over other peoples works they can learn the shapes and forms of letters, even if they cannot see what they are writing, and through the input of observers can learn if they are improving or not. They themselves have no ability to judge the quality of their works. This is, in rather loose terms, what AI does. It is in effect a blind person learning how to draw, just on a much larger scale then what is humanly possible. To criticize it as soulless simply because it relies on the art of others means that the calligraphy of the blind person is also soulless. Artists have far too high opinions of themselves. The value of an artist is not now technically skilled they are, because by that definition anything abstract or chance based can no longer be considered art. The value of an artist is understanding the human condition well enough to produce something that people will like, and that is not something that is uniquely reserved to "traditional" artists.