Raw LLM Responses

Get your facts straight. AI is not sampling from nor copying from, directly or in part any one of the billions of images in it's dataset. All of the art in it's dataset is all taken from the PUBLIC DOMAIN from the internet. It's no different than me going through google images and saving 1 billion images to my hard drive, copyrighted or not. Web scraping is 100% legal, and i can use any of those images for personal use, covered under fair use. If i want to build a personal library of other people's art, i can do that, and if i want to reference that library/data to learn from it, i can do that, and if i want to take what i've learned from that data and use it to inspire my own art, i can do that as well, there is ZERO ethical implications to that, as long as i'm not copying from or sampling from any of that art directly, to a degree that is not unique or distinguishable enough or covered under fair use. That is exactly what AI does, it's not stealing art, it's not taking "pieces" of any of those images and stitching them together, or any other similar fallacy. I don't need consent to save or use images from the web, as long as i'm not using them for commercial gain. The dataset itself is 100% legal, it wasn't used for profit, nothing was stolen, and there is no consent required by law. And since the AI programs using those datasets to learn what objects and things are, are using an algorithmic process of diffusion to procedurally generate results, as opposed to copying from or sampling from any one or even a number of those images directly, it's not even plagiarizing anything. Sure it can mimic an artistic style, but a style can't be copyright by law, and human artists copy from each other ALL the time and always have done. Diffusion actually plagiarizes less. That's the most ironic thing about all of this, is how much more original it is than a vast majority of human artists who don't have super-brains like AI does, and are very often influenced by the other art they have seen, intentionally or subconsciously. Copyright is not this holy grail of legal protection where you can just own abstract things like styles or ideas or concepts or sounds or materials etc. It only protects the specific arrangement of elements that culminate into something uniquely consistent like a logo or character, or a finished 'whole' media product specifically arranged by input of your personal labor, from being directly lifted or copied. Please bother to LEARN about the technology before you start condemning it, your blatant bias is clouding your understanding. A little digging into copyright law couldn't hurt you either. This stupid protest is meritless and based solely on fear and propaganda. All of the parroted echo-chamber arguments from this protest fall to the slightest bit of logical scrutiny. AI is not commercializing your work without your consent, it's a tool that people can use to create their own unique art, and it references it's dataset, the same way a human would reference a library. You won't win this war. Once the facts about the diffusion process and how it utilizes a perfectly legal dataset are presented to a court, the copyright lawyers are going to hang their hands in defeat, they simply do not have a leg to stand on.