Raw LLM Responses

Is plagiarism your only objection to ai art? If so- you have no objcetion to ai art, You have objection to the images it was trained on. It brings up the question of all non-nature photography being plagiarism- if say, a skyline view does not credit all of the architects of all of the buildings in the photo. Or if a photograph of a crowd of people in public is plagiarism if it doesn't credit, all of the designers are all of the clothing and all of the people in the photo who chose each individual outfit and styled it. It brings up the question of whether photographs of artworks - in the public domain are plagiarism- when no attempt is made to pass those photos of those artwork off as "i made that painting" but simply "I took the photograph". It brings up the question of whether or not AI art is plagiarism - if it is trained exclusively on a data set of images, consisting only of artworks made by that person, and photographs of those artworks taken by that individual. If so, that's not an objection to AI art. It's an obsession to the data said it's trained on. the reason we don't consider joins your paintings or don't necessarily credit the artist who made the pigments or designed the pencils or pens, or made the ink with the paper - every aspect of which is an art- is because they are sold and re-sold with the permission of the people who meet those media- who perhaps appreciate attribution, but don't require that there are be credited to them- we don't consider a painting co-authored by the artist and the people who made the pigments and media. We don't consider photographs of skylines an act of plagiarism, generally - because the person is not trying to pass off all of the buildings as made by themself, nor that they are taking credit for building the camera that took the image you are the circuitry in it. All of which are all of which designed by others. We don't. We don't consider filmmaking plagiarism, as long as the director doesn't clean that every building every article of clothing, every aspect of art captured by the camera has plagiarism. Whether it's the actors or the buildings in the background or members of the public because they were in public or available for photograph without specific attribution, the painted or otherwise artistically crafted signage on every building, the buildings, the city design literally everything in a film that doesn't exclusively film nature- as having also been made by themselves. so if the data said that an AI is trained on uses only public domain artwork- and the AI artist claims that the art is made by AI and then and not just photographs of their own artwork with photographs they took- as plagiarism, any more than we consider photographs, plagiarism, or it to be plagiarism to make a painting, even though one didn't dig up mix and craft the paint used without attributing the maker of the paint or pencils were the maker of the camera if it is a photographer, photographing nature, for example. Even though making camera cameras is an absolute work of art.- and we don't consider making the paint or the camera plagiarism if a lot of hands went into making those things and a lot of minds went into making those things while working for a company because they agreed to give their artistic contribution to making those media- and have that meeting used under whatever licensing or just sales contract because a sales of paint to an artist is a contract that the artist is free to use it however they choose without attribution. So the only objection to AI artist is plagiarism than it doesn't count if the entire data set that the AI is trained on is artwork and photographs and images, and literally anything in the public domain. The objection to AI art as plagiarism is not an objection to AI art. It's simply an objection to plagiarism.