Raw LLM Responses

a couple things: 1) fwiw, when people say that (theoretically ethically sourced "AI" generators) can be useful for reference images, it's less in the context of a reference that an artist would pull up for insights, and moreso in the context of a client providing it and saying, "make something like this, but good." sure, you can send a bunch of references, but if this tech was sourced properly (fully licensed, with compensation to the artists), and it became more environmentally efficient (which would already be the case with an inherently smaller dataset that you'd have in such a hypothetical where this shit was done the way it should)—you could instead just get a bundle of the brass tacks together. I'll add that, again, *_if_* these generators were ethical to use, the other use-case for them is placeholder images. basically the visual equivalent of lorem ipsum. 2) mind you, I am not much of an artist and my disabilities don't affect my ability to do what art I draw myself—during the initial wave of hype I did see a couple of disabled artists who were curious if the tech could help them. I think there'd be real interest in this stuff from disabled artists if it didn't have the caveats of being unethical and environmentally ruinous that it does in reality. but it is neither, and being disabled isn't an excuse for using such vile shite. in other words, it's a damn shame that this tech has been fucked up from the outset. it's easy to picture what it _should_ be for.