Raw LLM Responses

In general, I am not satisfied with the arguments of this video, so I decided to write below what I think should be covered on this topic, which unfortunately I have not seen anywhere on youtube. In this dispute, I am definitely in favor of the image generator tool, but of course I do not deny the existence of some individuals who use the tool incorrectly. At the same time, I believe that there is nothing wrong with the fact that AI was trained on copyrighted images. Using such a generator is inappropriate only if someone deliberately seeks to create a plagiarism and does not keep it for himself, and decides to sell it, or lies that he created the work himself, while in its creation he only took the role of the operator of the image generator. But I will approach this topic from a slightly different angle. People use their natural ability in the creative process to collect data from the environment, be it nature or other people and their activities, works of art included. On the basis of this sensual experience, works are created that are an emergent whole of the most diverse influences, all of which have been gathered by the sensory perception of the artist. By sensory perception I mean for example observing nature or being inspired by someone else's work. The artist's work in this sense was glued together, or 'emerged', by the artist, but it contains a huge amount of external influences, of which the artist is not and could not be the author. Art is about the existence of an environment from which inspiration can be gathered and to which one can refer or in which a work of art can be created. I assume most of you will agree with me that there is nothing wrong with using external influences in the process of creating and calling ourselves the creator of a given work, because we - our unique individuality - are responsible for gluing these external motifs together. That's what I think it means to be an artist. We consider inspiration as fine, and we view plagiarism as immoral. This whole argument boils down to pointing out that artists opposed to the use of their work argue that their work has been used without permission, while their own creative process is based on relying on outside influences without permission. So their own objection should also apply to themselves. But then there would be no creation or art. The structure of AI knowledge is created in the image of the human one, and the way of analyzing the input images that the AI feeds on is also intended to imitate human cognition as much as possible. In this way, the AI also collects very scattered external influences that can be glued together by the input operator of the image generator and, at his command, indeed glue together - a work that does not resemble the input images. A picture is created that contains a thousand very scattered elements from a thousand different pictures. Just like creating a work of art by a man who is inspired by everything around him. About cases of generating very similar images to those that constituted the learning sample later. The copyright argument is of little use here because, as I mentioned above, we consider inspiration as perfectly acceptable. It is done by getting to know the whole of someone else's work, and then subconsciously extracting some element(s) that we particularly like in order to use it in our work. Why would this not be acceptable in the case of AI? Because AI can create a picture identical to one already created by someone? Humans can also do this carelessly. And if AI is used with the intention of literally copying someone else's work, just like when a human copies something 1:1, it's plagiarism. Nobody argues that such an action is immoral - I think it is. But it is immoral due to the intent to create plagiarism. We have already established that we accept inspiration. AI using motifs from a huge number of different works collects data from them so scattered that the final work cannot be called plagiarism. I'd call collecting this data by AI an inspiration. In the case of AI image generation, plagiarism is a misuse at the hands of an operator who deliberately strives for a effect that is supposed to completely imitate someone else's already existing work. I don't think there is a valid argument to prohibit AI learning from images widely available on the web. If they can be found within seconds by a human, then he can be inspired by them. And in the process of inspiration, copyrights have nothing to say - they are supposed to protect against plagiarism. So you CAN feed the AI with copyrighted images widely available on the web, because the AI is intended to use them for learning and inspiration. We shouldn't ban AI just because it CAN generate plagiarism. After all, the artist too is always in the power to plagiarize. It is the fault of the operator who committed the plagiarism. It is the fault of the artist who plagiarised. Besides, creating complete plagiarism is immoral only if we didn't just create it for our own use. I would consider the sale of plagiarism immoral, but regardless of whether AI was used in its creation process or not. The whole implicit problem of AI artists seems to boil down to the fact that the image generation does not require artistic craftsmanship from the operator, so much time and practice. But there is no moral argument against using AI here! Here, there is only an attempt to find an argument to justify the artist's dissatisfaction with the fact that someone is able to achieve a similar effect in an image generation as an artist who worked for such an effect for many years. But what the artist worked for was not always being the best creator of artistic content, but being a man capable of creating this content himself. The operator of the image generator always has to rely on artificial intelligence, and this is where self-learning makes sense, and the artist's superiority is shown. There's no reason to lose motivation because something that isn't human has the power to create a prettier picture than we can. I would call this dissatisfaction a form of jealousy, or a sense of meaninglessness resulting from wanting to be superior to 'stupid AI'. This AI, by the way, thanks to its extensive database containing various influences, is the most convenient tool for learning to create illustrations and drawings that currently exists, and significantly affects the workflow and efficiency of creation for many actual artists. It's an amazing BENEFIT that we can access so much external influences from imagery that we normally wouldn't be even able to stumble upon. If you don't want your image to even be used for inspiration, then you don't want anyone to look at it. After all, inspiration often comes from prosaic, passive observation. In that case, it is your responsibility as the artist not to make your work publicly available. Only then will you achieve your goal. If you introduce the effect of your work to the Internet, you EXTERNALIZE IT, you make it appear within the range of perception of others. You MUST accept that it can naturally be used as inspiration. Here, in my opinion, also lies the problem - in the fact that artists irresponsibly make their works public. It lies largely on ARTIST'S side. You must accept that putting some of your creations online is inextricably linked to their use. You literally bring a new element to the outside world and distribute it! Depending on where you place them, you will determine their range of influence in different ways. If you want the reach of your works to be as wide as possible, you CANNOT expect that no one will use it as an inspiration. Use AI in your creative process, let it collect the same outside influences as you do, don't use it to plagiarize, and put as much of your influence as possible into the work you're putting together. If you see an AI-created plagiarized image that wasn't made public just to show off operator's proficiency in using the generator, but to make money, then and only then we have a problem. This is the only situation where artists have the right to oppose AI in my opinion. But it makes no sense to talk about banning AI entirely or prohibiting it from using external sources - let's talk about the immorality of an operator who may want to use AI in an inappropriate way. I realised that I have to divide my literal essay into two comments because there's a character limit of 10k in youtube comments, and I may have accidentally cross it with a score of 17k.