Raw LLM Responses

When I started this I didn't expect it to have 13027 letters I found out that Youtube Maximum is 10k so i split this insanely long comment in two All time stamps relate to the end of the statement in question I genuinely don't understand the problem. Can please someone explain to me I am not a fan of AI art nor am I a fan of Shedlyn I don't create ai images or anything else using an ai. My connection to art is through music. I'm not very knowledgeable about images or stuff like that In the music sphere there are also developments in ai technology but I genuinely cannot wait for them to be ready so that I have way more music to listen to The thing that bothers me the most is that I had to defend Shadlyn Especially because I can't think of any position that was not mentioned here where I otherwise would agree with him. This whole thing looks to me just like the infantile arguments I was making in regards to electronic music. I was saying: " You don't need skills for it. It's enough simply to move blocks around in a software (FL Studio, Cubase, etc.) and decide whether or not you like it." And I still think it's this way but I changed my mind on what the art is. Art to me isn't the ability to bring something to paper or any other medium but having the idea on what is created or what to create. I think the best argument you made is with the Commission but even then you would still be the artist even if you just commissioned it. But you wouldn't be the only artist involved. Why is the conversation about datasets? Are you claiming that you create art without influence or What is the categorical difference between a human learning on the previous art and an AI generating stuff based on previous art? -Major Disagreements: 06:06 I think that the categorization of ai art as a theft is extremely shallow and nonsensical Isn't it a fact that you don't have the thing after someone steals it from you? No one stole it. No one hacked your computer and stole your art. You published it(Or at least I'm assuming it) Would you agree with the following statements - The more data the ai has the less it can be considered theft Because it takes less from an individual writer or artist with an increase in the size of the data set For example - An AI trained only on Stephen King Books is stealing from Stephen King but the situation is more like if you train it on all books or all books in a genre - Wouldn't the same apply to a human author? 10:29 What is your problem with digital piracy(I am genuinely interested and I am not necessarily saying there is none) 10:37 Aren't the humans learning by reading the work of Writers who wrought before Where is the fundamental difference here(the same applies to every form of art) 14:05/33:33 So I think here is one of the main disagreements. I disagree with the concept of intellectual properties. A thought does not belong to you. everyone should be able to further their endeavor based on everyone's thoughts and ideas. 14:30 Is always nice to be categorized as a grifter or someone who doesn't care about artists just because someone has a different opinion 14:42 Isn't your main problem that people don't buy your or smaller artists work because there is a lot of competition because of AI(AI art is cheaper) 23:15 I think this is genuinely the worst take of the video. if he drew a character and simply enhanced it with ai to compensate for his inability Then this would be the most ethical use of ai especially if you use not a invented art style and use realism instead. 36:26 You shouldn't have to work Another job to be able to make art. Why do you think ai is the reason and not the disgusting system that forces you to work at second job to survive_ 37:49 This is exactly the mindset I think an artist should have and not only whether or not they can make money off of their art 40:16 I've never heard the claim that they are oud the art. The situation looks to me more like you published the art and they are free to look at the art and free to download and/or use the art because the platform where the art is on allows it I think policy wise the best solution would be to categorize AI art as non human art and non human art shouldn't be Copyrighteble in this case all ai art would be in the public domain Personally I think all art should be in in the public domain and you can be considered an artist if you make art for money (Not under the current system in which your survival is linked to your ability to make money)