Raw LLM Responses

I am a pretty neutral person toward AI art, mostly because the best it can do is imitate and not spawn new original ideas, from my point of view if something is publicly available on the net it should be possible to freely use that piece of media as inspiration or really any purpose as long as it is not just creating an exact copy and claiming it as your own, I do not think AIs are inspiring themselves from used art, but at the same time I don't think stealing is the right word. If we were trying to find the right word, an AI uses data to try and comprehend what a concept means (in a somewhat flawed way), then it creates images according to the understanding it has of that concept (which implies it cannot imagine and will always need artists to expand). I think AI image generators are a nice toy, if you thinker a bit you might obtain a pretty good image, but they are ultimately limited, in a way it's like a free artist to commismsion with a somewhat limited vocabulary, you can't say it's work is yours or anyone's really. AI image generation is cheap easy and limited, a real artist is more expensive but has real creativity and often an unique style. Both have good and bad things to them and I personally think both have different purposes. The idea of replacing artists is ridiculous but AI could become a nice tool. All that to say AIs aren't the devil and the people defending them aren't all babbling bufoons repeating the same idiotic arguments over and over, wanting to replace all artists. (Though I agree OpenAI are evil in their motives and way to develop this technology)