Raw LLM Responses

There's a difference between looking at images for reference and taking some images into photoshop and melding them together to claim something "unique" - unfortunately, it's usually only artists who know what that difference is. For the people who still don't understand why AI is pissing artists off, just try to imagine this scenario - someone posts a photo of their 12-year-old daughter at her birthday on their preferred social media platform, and then later finds that someone else has taken her face and placed it on a freeze-framed scene from some porn video, right in the middle of the action. This would disturb most people, right? But according to the arguments presented, since her photo was put on the internet, that means it's "free for anyone to use". And since the photoshopped amalgamation of a porn actress with a 12-year-old's face isn't actually a real person, no one's privacy or personal rights is being infringed. Apparently the parent or daughter (or actress) have "no right to be offended". And besides, pedophilia-inspired photo-manipulated porn is "inevitable, so there's no point in fighting it". Look I'm not trying to start more fights here, I'm just offering another vantage point for context. If AI reaches the point where it could use artwork without the original reference being recognizable - if the photoshopped porn scene was rendered such that the daughter's face and the sourced video were unrecognizable - then maybe people wouldn't be so upset about it.