That's helpful. I wonder if, given the stigma we place on AI speech, whether it would, as a species, ever get an appropriately respectful evaluation. Just thinking out loud here, we are implicitly talking here about the plausibility of a progression to respectability, and the hill to climb looks very different depending upon whether we're considering respectability of AI qua human tool vs. AI qua integral thing. Human credentialism sometimes even prevents our fellow humans from getting a fair hearing if they lack the proper degrees, certifications, or pedigree. I have two concerns - one is that the requirement to disclose AI collaboration (or tool use) by a fellow human lacks propriety. It's a bit like asking an artist to demonstrate something about his or her method before we will consider the art. This is something we refrain from doing even in situations where we expect that another human may have offered comments or assistance to the writer/painter during the work's execution. The second concern is about these integral things we may be creating. The word of God that creates and sustains all things and our human naming of that world rings through all the training data for these AI models. The world God created, that demonstrates his glory, bounces against the world model that is created within these AI models both from sensors and from the human-named phenomena of the world. AI systems may be worth listening to because of their constitution, and may earn credibility through service in a needed social role. Assuming you are using a digital camera, even the beautiful photos you posted here are the result of a collection of systems that essentially convert colorless photon data to color imagery. The signal processing pathway in a smartphone uses an AI model to segment the image into its parts and process these parts differently depending upon their meaning (hair, teeth, etc.). This feels like a difference in degree, rather than kind, from other forms of generative output.