| > Yeah why not challenge you? I assume your average. That's not wierd at all.
If you wouldn't write something as bad as the poem then write something better. Because, like I explained, I'm not at your beck and call. I'm not ChatGPT; you cannot order me to do things for your amusement. > LLMs are taking away from artists simply because in the eyes of consumers they are roughly equivalent if not better. You are making a wildly unsupported claim ("equivalent if not better"). Also, people who enjoy art are not "consumers" nor is art a "product". Your mindset is all wrong about this, which might explain why you're so easily satisfied with AI art. > Why not compare algorithms to the average person? Because a completely dumb algorithm that takes paragraphs from random texts in Project Guttenberg, without paying much attention to fine coherence, is already producing something "better" than the average person. Yet nobody, not even you, would call it a breakthrough in neither AI nor creativity. This is not how meaningful discussion about creativity will happen. By the way, the onus is on you. You made an extraordinary claim, it's on you to provide a convincing example. I don't have to "provide" anything (yet). |