Raw LLM Responses

The artist a lot of the time is the art director, among a thousand other things, and is at least capable of taking on that role and modifying it accordingly to their environment to a bunch of chaotic factors what we call "AI" now can't even come close within 1% of. AI is a tool because it was literally built to execute a singular task that involves no creative process whatsoever that requires it to organically think. AI cannot be an artist because it's based on cold mathematics via coding and the way it learns is still based on the same perfect algorithms. Even the "mistakes" it makes are technically "perfect" and wouldn't count as mistakes if humans weren't there to directly interfere and point them out, because it doesn't think, understand anything spherically or is able to feel and have an opinion. Moreover, AI is not an artist because none of its generations would exist without direct copies of years of human artwork pumped directly into its code to shape it to begin with. It is inherently incapable of originality, pulling a single stroke that's based on anything but real art hallucinations. The first humans to start drawing did not have a background to learn from. Originality is a deeply seeded human trait based on things generative algorithms fundamentally lack, because they'd only be obstacles to the obvious tools they are. AI is a tool because it was made to be a tool and hasn't swerved away from that, like any other program. Its only deviations occur because of human imperfections it is not responsible for. Your computer is not thinking, it's processing. There is no creative decision making, it is only pulling from its library to match your prompt. Those are 2 different things. Whether or not the result is acceptable falls on your own thoughts and any sort of creativity stems from the simple command your provide, the code is incapable of making decisions in the same way we are, it only imitates based on statistical analysis of human art, which is an unfeeling, simplified process it has no way of justifying besides telling you it is the result of its learning algorithm based on what you instructed it to do. There is nothing you can analyze in a generated image, because the answer is always "a skilled artist the AI was trained on probably had a reason which it copied, which is now lost". There's no value in this imitation besides "looking good". Reducing the soul that comes with the term "artist" to a computer is insulting and belittling to you too without realizing it. You are not interacting with a person, you are interacting with software. A commissioned artist is not software, the result of their work is based upon years and years of the human condition and all of those things the AI lacks have directly influenced what their art looks like. They have opinions, aspirations, criticisms, all of which AI lacks and why it is very, very obviously, beneath you and me. If you were a creative, you'd recognize how small and insignificant an AI generated image is at the face of an angry toddler's wall crayon rampage. The art industry replacing human workers with machines isn't indicative of anything besides capitalism working as intended, the primary concern there are profits and this favors that, but it's never decided what art is, how much its actually worth or if it should exist at all, it's just something spawned out of the human need to create it.