Raw LLM Responses

Thank you Sam. Here's my thinking. (Old School perhaps and badly worded) It seems there are some fallacies. First, the relationship between the creator and the created. The resultant image is only that. It is not the art or the reason for the image. We have long ago quit this battle for the idea and "art appreciation" has been reduced to love or hate with no need for understanding or discussion. The creator is a unique individual, wired in a way that is different from every other individual, and comes with a specific and non-repeatable set of sensory experiences. What this individual produces is always from within themselves. It is an integral part of their identity. So this fallacy has to do with identity theft. Take my image and use it is the same as take my social security number and use it. AI Art is a cyber security issue which probably will have no advocates. The other fallacy is this. All of the images have to be prompted- directed toward some result externally. In talking with someone who has explored AI Art, they underscored that the prompts that one puts in are in relation to the collective prompts from others as part of the data base. What could be the result from this as an image? An image that looks like what we want to see would be a good guess. This fallacy is that "Art" comes from inside the individual and is expressed externally to the world (viewers) whereas AI takes external data points and collages them into yet another external image. We have accepted an algorithm as a sensory individual. Ai Art is a fraud that is perpetrated on the uninformed and weak. The motive is ulterior to the motive of "art". Again, this will probably have no advocates. Since we are awash in visual images and purported "artists", this might be a nonstarter.