Raw LLM Responses

People might not like this but you are both wrong to a degree. Copyrighting AI art is dumb but claiming that AI art can’t be art is also dumb. Do you know how many artists use shortcuts and cheats that is practically equivalent to using AI. Yes AI is simple if you use a language model that already exists but developing your own language models is far more work than learning to take good photographs. There is varying degrees of art whether it be human or otherwise. If someone can fill a can with plaster or shit and label it artists shit and it can be called art then AI art more than classifies as art. There’s also the fact that you could train AI on your own art. Art isn’t black and white in terms of what constitutes art and never has been but drawing this line in the sand is very misguided. There’s AI art that’s phenomenal and AI art that sucks, there’s AI art that is just a copy of someone else’s art and AI art that has its own art style. The same applies to human art. There’s things like collages, photography, copying existing art, etc that can be incredibly simple and then there’s things like charcoal, oil painting, pastels, watercolours and other far more complex and difficult art mediums. Same applies to AI art. It’s like claiming using a calculator is not doing math. Selling it should be completely fine provided it isn’t being passed off as something it’s not. And I think copyrighting and licensing it is not something that should happen unless it’s something trained on your own work or using an AI art style that is unique and developed by them(to varying degrees). I think both extremes of this argument need to meet somewhere in the middle. Most people who hold these ideas have very limited knowledge about the opposite side of their argument and have these oversimplified misguided opinions.