Raw LLM Responses

While you don't exactly seem like a reasonable person based on this comment, I will attempt to explain why you are wrong. AI generated images may be nice to look at, but that's it. They're not art. You can't study them. They don't "convey" anything. There is no meaning to them. Because they were assembled probabilistically, not intentionally. The method matters because the method informs how we interpret what we're seeing, what questions it makes sense to ask about it, and what meanings it can contain. Imagine an artist makes paintings by dropping paint on a canvas from 2 stories up. The end product may be really cool. It may evoke something in the people who see it. But "why does it have this red blob in the corner?" or "what does it mean that these two colors blend in this way?" are questions without answers beyond talking about probability and gravity. Because nobody chose to make it look the way it does. It looks the way it does because that's how the paint happened to fall. That's the issue with AI generated images. You cannot ask why they look the way they do because there is no answer to that question and we all know it. Nobody chose where to place each brushstroke or where the light source would be. Art is a collection of choices the artist made for the purpose of conveying something to the viewer. An AI generated image is a collection of pixels colored by probabilistic algorithms to resemble things in its training data. The images might be cool. You're allowed to like them, and you're allowed to make them. But there is an actual reason why people who care about art don't consider them art beyond elitism or concern that they'll be replaced.