Raw LLM Responses

AI users are often mistaken about art's "accessibility" since it's always been available to learn, but they are correct in so far as quality image creation is now accessible. What once took days or more of active study for reliable results, as well as multiple hours of work, now takes a few presses from a keyboard and seconds to minutes at most. 4:33 More ethical to prevent job loss? How far do we take this? Stop all car manufacturing to preserve horse breeders? Destroy all cameras to protect portrait painters? Light bulbs for candle makers? Innovation leads to loss of labor in a given area, simply how it works. 5:47 It's not "theft" because nothing is stolen, no one is deprived by this action. It doesn't matter how much effort you use, you either violate IP or not. You also have no (natural) right over information made publicly available, if I see Goku, I can draw him without consent. "It's not copying, it's just taking." That makes no sense. Do fan artists "take" as well? 9:30 That video shows exactly what it needs to show. Artists (not all) will naturally react against AI, showing inherent biases, rather than being objective. And if AI can fool people into thinking it's real, it'll meet standards that secure it a place in the market. You even agree that the idea of beauty being in the eye of the beholder has negative consequences against art. 17:46 Consumability would be market success, so in that way it does. That said, "soul" also matters to many, and will find its niche in the market, it's just that now both with-soul and without-soul art are options. And sure, AI will come for us all, but as mentioned all innovation comes for someone. 24:30 Never heard of personal preference? 25:09 Whoa there, keep in mind regulation is law enforcement, which means threat of, if not use of, violence. Why should violence be used to stop innovation?