Raw LLM Responses

So disclaimer, I haven't watched the entire video, but I want to make a quick point here. TLDR of my point. No, AI art is not theft. Now, to expand on that: AI learns by scraping artists art work without permission and using it to train itself. Artists learn by scraping other artists art work without permission and using it to train themselves. This is a simplistic but accurate way of describing the process of learning of both humans and AI. If you argue AI art is theft because the AI uses the artists artwork to learn without their consent, then other human artists using references to create art is also theft. Now, that said. There is nuance. If you want to argue that AI should be regulated due to the impact it can have on the business of thousands of artists, that's a thing I can agree on. If you want to argue that AI art shouldn't be able to be copyrighted because the artwork has not enough effort behind it compared to another ways of making art, I can also agree to that depending on how you argue it. If you want to argue that artists should get a say in whether or not their works are scrapped by AI, I can also agree to that. But, an artwork is not stolen artwork unless it shares too many resemblances with another artwork. That applies for both human made art and AI made art. The process through which it was made doesn't matter. Unless the AI spits out a copy or something resembling another art work closely, AI art is not theft. Edit: 26:52 - 28:13 I agree 100% with this statement/reasoning as to why AI should be regulated and why certain uses of AI are unethical. It doesn't make AI art theft though. Maybe if by theft you mean "wrongful use" then maybe. But if by theft you mean "stolen", then no, it's not theft.