Raw LLM Responses

The reason why there is a disconnect between artists and AI art completion consumers is both a misunderstanding of the technology and a backwards way of looking at why something should or should not be legal. AI should be legally allowed to do anything that a person could do. (points for the AI enthusiasts) AI should NOT be legally allowed to do anything that a person is also not legally allowed to do. Example of AI that should be legal. Someone asks for a picture of a Dragon in an art deco style. The AI uses vectors is created during training that are most relevant for it's understanding of the request to create something that looks like a Dragon in Art Deco style. A human could be hired to do something and draw inspiration from various other human art pieces and that is ok for them and ok for the AI. Example of AI that should be illegal: Draw me a village on a sunny day in the style of Thomas Kinkade. AI uses the vectors created during the training set relevant to a single artist to produce something that looks very much like that artist's work. If a human said pay me to create stuff for you in the style of a commercial artist, they would get sued. Why should it suddenly be legal because the AI is not human? So I think there is good and bad here for artists. The good is that AI is in a number of cases directly using your art "likeness" intentionally in a commercial manner that has attracted value because of the specific hard work you have put into the art. It is not fair that you are not compensated for the money someone makes off of art generated for the specific purpose of being similar to what you do (i.e. using your name). If you form a trade group (i.e. Artist labels) they should be able to get you compensated for a percentage of the compensation that was generated based on specific use. The bad news is that AI doesn't actually store your pictures in a format that looks like your picture any more than the neurons in someone's brain that allows them to conjure up what your picture might look like. The AI likely does less of this than a human brain does. The AI is really good at storing relationships between the way things are generated and categories (i.e. Art Styles, Artist Styles, Objects etc...). Unlike a human the AI doesn't forget how to do these things and it has a nearly unlimited capacity to meet demand for such works instantly. You will never be able to make the case that your art being part of training entitles you to compensation any more than you could make the same argument with a human who has done so. BUT when it comes to the marketing of these services when they steal your style (intentionally with your name etc...) to make their products more popular to others who are specifically familiar with your style, that they are going to need to compensate you for in the same way a human who chose to brand their products and use your name as the "style" would need to.