Raw LLM Responses

This is pretty rough... If you want to see some well informed takes on AI art I suggest watching Marc Brunets *"The fundemental problem of AI art"* Adam Duff LUCIDPIXUL *"AI ART - Where The Line Must Be Drawn"* The ethics of AI art came into play when someone mentioned AI images had watermarks. Everyone automatically assumed this was because the AI was clone stamping directly from the source. Which is not true but no one cared to even read the explanation. You will never find an actual artists name/watermark on an AI generated image. It doesn't technically copy art in the way people think. It learns that some art has weird little squiggly marks on it and will attempt to mimic that based on images it has been fed. When you say _"idk if its directly drawing around something with a lasso tool, copying and pasting it."_ It just tells people you haven't educated yourself on how the AI works, which strips you of the right to name your Video *"How AI is Stealing Art"* because you are not telling us how at all. You are telling us what you think. Which is a little bit unethical imo. _"The first thing people had a problem with, is AI scraping images to learn from."_ This is also similar to an artist using a collage of reference material. More info on that in "Steal like an Artist" by Lucas Peinador. Most Artists have a pinterest album full of reference material that they go back and forth from or something similar. The AI never goes back to the same reference image, it doesn't need to. You said "Can you even use a bunch of copyrighted artists works to learn from?" Yes you can, this is how most people learn. Especially if they don't have the money to go to school for it. You are asking if its ethical for a machine to do the same thing. That question might never get answered. It's also never been unethical for an artist to use the style of another artist. I have no clue where that came from. Every artist you love has developed a style that has been influenced by other artist. If you are copying an artists style, chances are they have developed this style based on many other artists. We do have many artists that are upset and don't want machines to learn from their work. _"The bigger issue is that corporations will be taking advantage of this technology."_ The ethics debate is the bigger issue currently. Right now there are tons of companies hosting AI generated art services. You are not paying them to use the software, you are paying to use their hardware since it can be taxing and time consuming to run these AI on your PC. If you don't have a decent PC you are not going to have the best time generating AI art. You also claim the programmers of stable diffusion are not making money but at the same time you caption a question mark. If you are not sure, don't make these claims? Also whats wrong with the laws in Texas. You're not even allowed to curse at a corpse in Texas. _"Why would you pay a commission artist when you can pay $3 for 100 different images."_ That ones pretty easy. People commission artists because they like the brand and want to say "I got this art made specifically for me by this rad artist." also 100 different images is not enough to generate something worth saving. No its not turning art into a mass produced commodity. It's giving Human artists more value. It's still far more impressive to meet an artist than it is to meet someone who generates art using prompts. Johseph Lovescu asked _"why would a studio hire me to work in my own style when they can have an AI copy it."_ A studio would hire you because you know more about the source material than the AI does. You understand the story/lore and personality of the project at hand. It's not the AIs job to understand what its creating an image for... It's yours! The studio will most likely want to hire someone who is able to use AI in their workflow. Someone will generate ideas fast and it's now your job to take these ideas and merge them into the final picture. Anyway thanks for coming to my Ted Talk.