Raw LLM Responses

I am a professional artist, as you can see from my YouTube verification badge, and I don’t consider AI-generated images to be theft. No one forbids you personally from drawing, and no one is taking your paintings away. You can still sell them. You can still keep them. AI creates its own images. Yes, many pictures may be copyrighted, like in the case of Disney or The Simpsons, but does that mean you can’t draw Disney or Simpsons characters yourself? Can’t you directly redraw a frame or make something on the level of Shrek Retold? Of course you can. I don’t agree with the idea that I can’t depict the same Simpsons characters—whether I use AI or pirated software. (I’d buy Animate, but its yearly subscription is too expensive.) I agree that disabled people have many ways to express themselves creatively, and I don’t see what they have to do with this discussion. When it comes to AI, it simply saves you time on repetitive parts of your work and boosts your efficiency. It also enhances your abilities where you might otherwise have none. It’s more logical to compare artists fighting AI not to artists fighting photography, but to the Luddites smashing textile machines in the 19th century. For example, your video is translated into many languages—which allowed me to watch it. It wasn’t translated by a professional translator but by a person whose voice was cloned by AI. The labor of translators and voice actors made your work more accessible. Does that make your video bad? Apparently not. It’s simply more available. What I see in your fight against AI and what you call “AI theft” is a vain attempt to preserve the past so you can keep working without competition from AI—for the same wages you’re used to. You’re a minority. For better or worse, AI makes art more accessible. Maybe you feel closer to your taped banana or Francis Bacon’s paintings than to the AI slop generated daily by millions of Indians on Facebook. But why do you think your opinion can stop or change progress? Even if Disney wins a few lawsuits and adds verification layers to one specific neural network generating its characters, Chinese networks will just do the same thing anyway. In the end, it will only mean lobbying for Chinese AI models that never cared about copyright in the first place. That’s all. And complaining that data centers consume too much water - really? So what? Those same data centers also store millions of YouTube videos and use just as much water and electricity. Meanwhile, how much money has AI already generated for the world? How much useful work has it done? Take AlphaFold, which discovered countless protein sequences. Without AI, it would have taken us 80,000 years at the same pace as before. You guys are the same Luddites throwing shoes into textile looms to save your jobs. Nothing more, nothing less. Essentially primitives fighting progress to preserve a world where you don’t have to change to keep earning money. But just like the Luddites, you’ll fail. It’s simply an amusing, pointless protest that will lead nowhere—except maybe to a world where Chinese AI models, which couldn’t care less about your copyright laws, dominate the internet. Because lawsuits only work against those whose rights are protected on equal terms with yours.