As it stands neural networks and LLMs can't do it, because they lack imagination. A human can use it as tool to make art though, and we don't have these silly kinds of conversations about photoshop (anymore!).
As for the OP, you've taken it a bit more literally and reacted a bit more defensively than I think is warranted. The point is about our systems priorities, not so much the specifics.
Got vehemently disagreed with, without counter-argument, for making the point that 'AI' art already requires a decent amount of human input and knowledged tinkering to get an adequate result.
I, for example, can't sit down and make Midjourney output a human with only five fingers per hand. I'm sure I wouldn't have to look too hard to find a tutorial on how to solve that hurdle, and the effort is no doubt a lot less than painting it myself. But my point stands that 'AI'/LLMs aren't doing diddly useful squat on their own and won't be for a while because so far they just do not understand abstract reasoning and so need humans to accommodate that element.
I recall an excellent article that pointed out 'AI' doesn't understand a prompt that says 'no giraffes' because people do not label every image on the internet that does not contain giraffes with 'no giraffes'.
So, waffle coming to a close, I absolutely agree with you. As it stands - and likely for a long while yet - 'AI'/LLMs are just a tool that can be helpful to artists in certain situations.
The point of the OP microblog still stands though; our system prioritises made up money trees over actual human life.
It's not free. We pay for the NHS through tax. It's free at the point of use.
This is a seemingly perfect dandy stance to take, right up until you can't afford private health care and then you're the victim of medical negligence.
I don't really have much to say that hasn't been said already, so just know that I feel for you man. That's a really tough rap; you can do it, though - you are doing it and it is so so worth it.
When you look back, you won't remember the crap - but the few precious diamond moments you can snatch from it all will shine.
There's sometimes a lot of benefit to be had with throwing caution to the wind and blowing the routine and rules out the window. So stick Bluey on all Saturday and cuddle up with the kids with a hot chocolate. Sundays are for worries, after all.
Yesterday when I saw your reply it and the other one criticising the person I replied to were at a positive vote score, and my comment itself had about 20 to 30 positive votes.
Now your comment and mine have dropped by about 20 votes each, without any further lemming comment.
I'm not a US citizen so please could you explain this line of reasoning to me?
Trump was the person that recognised Jerusalem as Israel's capital, despite absolutely no need to. I haven't heard of anything that suggests he wouldn't support Israel wholeheartedly.
So in a choice that is Biden Vs Trump. Why is Biden the worse choice?
Now don't get me wrong, as a Brit I know how much of a curse FPTP is - but it's a pipe dream to think a 3rd party candidate hae a chance of winning in this situation, surely?
So what's the logic of these kinds of posts? If you don't vote for Biden, won't you just end up with something worse?
As far as scientific evidence can demonstrate, no.
As far as anecdotal evidence suggests, yes.
The likely explanation? If you're the type of person to eat pineapple / drink pineapple juice regularly for a while, you're also likely to do the other things that make your stuff taste delectable - like exercising, eating healthily and not drinking loads of coffee and smoking. Cause if you don't do those other things, you could have all the pineapple you like and still taste bad (particularly smoking).
Yet the OP comment is literally using past performance as a 'both sides' argument.
Can't have it both ways.