Raw LLM Responses

The best analogy I've heard about AI art is: Ordering your food at a kiosk does not make you a chef. You pick out ingredients and string them together to make a meal. Some one else makes the food. You are not a chef. Except the food is meals that are stolen, taken apart and put back together. And the customers are claiming they cooked it themselves. If people want to create with AI I think they should be using a different word than artist. "AI Curator" or "AI Wordsmith" or something along those lines should be used. I think AI is here to stay and we cannot change that, but I do think there NEEDS to be laws to protect artists that don't want their art being feed into the machines learning it. There is other AI machines out there, but developers put in non copyrighted things into them because of fear of legal issues. Where is the same thinking for artists? Music AI developers have admitted to not putting copyrighted sounds in because "they could produce something too close to a song with a copywrite and they could be sued" so they used ONLY royalty free songs! These machines should only be feed creative Commons pieces and people who opt in. These machines would not be producing the quality of work they are currently without stealing so much art... New technology is always going to have bad sides, it is up to the people to make laws to protect the people when these things arise. -from an aritst