Raw LLM Responses

For your argumentation to start working, you first NEED to stop being smug and snarky. That just removes value from any good points you'd make, as people are less inclined to agree with someone that gives off unsympathetic vibes. Leave out the mocking voice-overs and the teasing jabs at typos. You'll reach a broader audience that way. Two: the "AI learning samples are stolen artwork argument" is flimsy, as it can be debated that AI performs the same tasks as a person "taking inspiration". It's more reasonable to point out that AI is actually not a person and as such cannot be credited for any artistic creation, while at the same time one should notice that the person, who tasks the AI with creating something, doesn't perform any creative work themselves. That, essentially, makes all artistic work created by an AI worthless, since the creative mind behind it doesn't exist (until the point in time where AI actually develops a real personality, but then it'll be a whole new can of worms). That, in turn, makes any question or thought that the consumer of the artwork might have about it's content equally worthless. And that's just not attractive to humans as a whole. However, this also means that that everything an AI creates that IS NOT artistic, nor requiring human-level of creativity, can actually be considered as valuable. And we see that working out every day.