>Ok, no art is not created in a vacuum but that's not the problem here.Humans need to process the art through their senses, to the brain, then, eventually learn and apply their skills to re-create something new.It usually takes time to become a good artist and even more so to really be original.

AI works similarly, except it doesn't take much real-world time to train and produce. We like to think very highly of ourselves, we are so original, we are so creative and complex... but this AI revolution is proving that we are not that awesome.

​

>AI is a great technological feat but it's as good as the input fed into it.

No. The output is greater than the sum of its parts. Same thing with LLM. It's something called emergence, and we don't know how it happens.

AI is not going to replace only artists, but every job we can do with a computer.

​

>That's where a lot of the AI community fails to really question the motives and implications behind it.

The AI community is most aware of these changes and what the implications are going to be. The clue is in the name "singularity". That's why we often talk about UBI and other solutions because we know they're coming, and they're coming faster than the world knows. We have daily discussions about it and have tried to warn everyone about it, but those who don't understand how exponential growth works frequently accuse us of daydreaming. You should spend more time here reading than writing.