[scoot]

> I don't want to consume "art" that has been generated out the distillation of stealing all of the world's current art

It seems that you've fundamentally misunderstood art. I wouldn't personally call it "stealing", but T.S. Eliot would beg to differ (as would Pablo Picasso who "stole" that line)

> I want to read something that has intent. That has a purpose. A reason why it exists.

If the "allegories for the LLM condition" angle is accurate, then these stories do. In which case I believe what you mean to say is that you want to read something that has human intent.

[bertylicious]

Are you claiming that LLMs have an intent beyond producing the statistically most "correct" output? This sounds a bit like you are saying LLMs are conscious.

[scoot]

> producing the statistically most "correct" output

That isn't quite how they work - there's a degree of randomness depending on so called "temperature". And it isn't the output that's statistically modelled, it's the next token based on the prior output.

> This sounds a bit like you are saying LLMs are conscious

No more so than OP is implicitly asserting that human art is produced in cleanroom isolation. I don't believe either to be true.