Raw LLM Responses

This was a shitty defense in all honesty. You let AI into the art world in the first place, and compare it to existing artists. This line needs to be drawn and AI will never cross it. AI does "Entertainment", humans make both "Entertainment" and "Art". There are much better concepts to bring up more clearly: Art is an advanced form of communication. It's meant for communicating complex ideas that cannot simply be said with a sentence of two, which takes effort but the outcome is a greater collection of information exchanged. You saying "when I found out it's AI I'm no longer interested in consuming this art" and "if nobody bothered to draw it why should I bother to look at it?" doesn't mean anything. Since AI will get good enough to eventually reproduce what artists spend weeks making, we have to accept that reality and focus our attention elsewhere. Watching SpongeBob (Entertainment) while growing up, we are intentionally or unintentionally given a piece of the worldview of the artist who made some specific scene, episode, wrote a line or whatever. This is art. AI doesn't do this, as it acts like millions of co-writers to no real writer when writing a story, and a similar symbolism can be used for other media forms as well. If you promt AI to "write a new Ice Age movie" it will eventually be able to do quite a good job, but it will never unintentionally communicate it's worldview in interesting ways that leave a lasting impression that real artists would, even though both follow rules and are trying to achieve the same thing: embellish the previous movies while bringing something new to the table. The "human element" you mention is the trace amounts of the artist's worldview being indirectly imprinted into the art and bleeding into you as you consume the entertainment. This worldview and opinion and subjectivity can only be embedded *more* deeply if the artist is intentionally doing this. This is what we usually call "art" but the intent to send a message to the audience isn't necessarily what classifies your art as art. Saying "there is no point in AI art" or "AI art is degenerate" won't matter when AI gets good enough to replicate pixel for pixel a drawing somebody might've made with all the details if the promt is detailed enough. This is what stoic philosophers meant when they said "it doesn't matter who said it, only what is said matters". This is both a justification for AI in art and a harsh attack against it.