Raw LLM Responses

Except the whole narrative that "photography was heavily rejected by artists in the 1800's" is greatly exaggerated by modern historical narrative. There's very little historical evidence that suggests the backlash reaction from back then was as proportionally big as it is right now and whatever little evidence we *do* have is very sparse and don't provide an ample vision of the reaction of the general community (not to mention some of which wasn't even written by artists, but art critics instead). As for CGI, it didn't even initially receive much of a backlash until a good while later when many movies fumbled the bag with the technology AFTER Jurassic Park successfully implemented and popularized it. So it had more to do with the quality of the outputs rather than the method of making the effects itself. And even then, practical effects are starting to make a comeback, sooo..... And while I do agree that the AI Art hate will eventually fizzle out, I believe it's gonna be more to do with how it *won't* turn out to be present everywhere to make art to the point it will outright replace artists on anywhere near a mass scale despite its potential quality. But remember: AI is the first new technology/device to actually *emulate* other mediums and techs instead of providing a new application altogether. Where CGI and photography provided an entire new avenue of media possibility expansions, AI *emulates* existing ones without expanding into new ones itself. So what it does has no historical precedent as it only serves to muddy the waters with other with other methods. And this is why I have a problem with all of these past comparisons in the history of art that people make to dismiss concerns around these discussions everytime it reappears again: They completely miss the historical nuance and context of each individual situation.