Raw LLM Responses

This sounds like a sad death cry of someone who is unwilling to accept the end is coming. For anyone willing to listen, I will elaborate. Sooo many of these points are trivial to counter, like how you arbitrarily categorize content selection and noise reduction as non creative but coloring, shading etc as inherently creative... These are subjective categorizations to say the least. Michelangelo would laugh at you for not knowing how to mix your own paint and effectively apply it on a wall, as would Phidias for not knowing how to handle a chisel. This is yet another reduction (albeit a dramatic one) to the amount of work an artist needs to do to create an art piece and it doesn't sound like you had a problem with all the previous ones. You bring up Picasso, astutely pointing out that realism isn't a prerequisite for art but fail to realize that knowing how to handle a pencil isn't either, for the exact same reasons. Nor is anatomy or knowing how light works. Sure the grandmasters of the arts probably studied all those things, as I'm sure did Picasso. The irony is, Picasso's contemporaries criticized him for his lack of fundamentals the same way you are criticizing those "wannabe" artists today, yet you bring him up as defense to your point. There is a conversation to be had about whether you can strip effort completely out of art but the conclusion is subjective, as is the definition of "effort". Keep in mind when cameras were invented, people similarly thought it diminished art to a single press of a button. They were just blind, not unlike you, to the potential of artistic expression to move into new directions, which would give birth to a whole new creative process called photography. This is an identical case. AI artists are not claiming to be painters after all. Why you want to gatekeep them outside of art is beyond me. Note: I'm not arguing against AI's dangers. I'm arguing against the gatekeeping position of "AI prompters are not artists because reasons".