Raw LLM Responses

This video misses the mark on AI training by a mile. Artists have always studied publicly available work from others, alive or dead, without paying a cent. They view, learn, and imitate, just like AI models analyze images to create new ones. Demanding AI companies compensate artists while humans learn for free is hypocritical and reeks of speciesism, discriminating against the upcoming "digital minds". That said, credit where due... the video makes one solid point: we shouldn't label every button-clicker an "artist," but if they curate and publish AI-generated results they like, they're at least a creative director. It's like a seashell necklace maker scouring the shore: some find gems, others duds... the best pieces hinge on taste, chance, and scouting skills, not crafting shells from scratch. The real issue is envy over efficiency: human brains take years to learn... AI does it in seconds (though training costs millions in compute, not free). Aspiring artists might pay for classes, but not for viewing art online, same as AI scraping public data. The video parades every meme Shadiversity shared but dodges their core issues. For example, AI critics label anything AI-generated as "slop" only after learning it's AI; before that, they might call it the best artwork they’ve seen. It’s a blatant double standard: fair use applies to all learning, human or machine. Drop the illogical gatekeeping and embrace the next stage of creativity and abundance of art, or stay stuck in your contradictory bubble.