Raw LLM Responses

The dune movie recap shows what an LLM does: a) didn't copy the image. b) represented the image in a high dimensional vector space embedding. c) compressed the image. If you think these llm's are copying these images are you mistaken. So many of the actual details are vastly different, because it doesn't compress that great. What this shows: a) the llm can copy styles b) the llm can reconstruct the gist of an image without copying it. But to answer your question, yes, you can get the LLM to generate that image inspired by almost any artist and it will look like if a human had that same inspiration. Not all images painted by humans look like they are 'inspired' by something. That's assuming that the people supplying this 'exact copy' images aren't just making it up- there's tons of ways you could fake that to win the 'ai debate' argument. Your argument that the ai generated art is somehow preventing people from finding out where the source material came from is kind of ridiculous...The art is popular because the LLM could generate it, not the other way around...And finding out the possible source material is a multi modal question away, doesn't require a human in the loop to answer that. Pointing out that Ai makes the wrong number of buttons on a reference image doesn't change the fact that you could simply realize that and use the rest of the image, which is perfectly fine, as a reference. You're just cherry picking at this point to find flaws the ai still makes than pointing out a real problem. Framing that problem as 'it's good for disabled people' and barrier of entry framing makes no sense. Look - there's a lot of people out there who are not artistically inclined. Obviously the cost of learning how to make art is the time it takes and motivation to even waste your time on that - it's called opportunity cost. No amount of guilting is going to get me to stop using ai art because I could theoretically be learning how to draw. Yet learning how to draw will takes thousands of hours of training and if you're not artistically inclined you're not even guaranteed to have good results in the end. You lose this argument too. The fact is no one cares if you think we should be using ai art for games, images, etc. Everyone's just going to do it. We don't need to justify ourselves to artists to use ai generated art, just a vibe coder doesn't need justify himself to other programmers, if it's a useful tool he's going to use it. At least you do have one thing going for you though - poisoning DOES work. And I don't really care that you're doing it - it's fair play in my game to basically say "My art will destroy your dataset, and if you don't like it, don't use it".