Raw LLM Responses

Often AI art is discussed as black and white. I would likely agree with you on many points (artists work should be protected and they should be compensated for it). EITHER, you are a good person who does everything by hand OR you are someone who has no skill or talent, who can't think for themselves... I think this approach is both dishonest and unhelpful. Dishonest: all digital artists have been using AI for some time. As LavenderTowne shows us in her own video. Using things like fills, smart selections, various coloring filters and tools IS AI. It's not LLM or a text-to-image AI, but the artist is shortcutting manual processes and replacing traditional jobs in the arts. The question is not whether your a good girl or boy and do it by hand, but what parts of the processes are legitimately replaced by computers for you personally and society generally. While the reverse (the black-and-white portrayal of people with no interest in art or creativity using AI art) has a basis in reality, it's not actually helpful for answering the weightier questions in art that are going to be coming down the pipe. You're leaving actual artists completely unprepared to deal with more difficult cases. Is it okay take your character are, and use copy and paste, and modify pose slightly for frames of animation? That's a simple a yes as "Is it okay to steal artists painting and use it as your own" is a no. But what about more complex cases? What about when an artists can do concept art, train AI on it for animation, and have AI produce a rough draft of frames? Was "tweening" in an animation program Also, the underlying problem. It's clear that unique characters can be protected by IP, but Lavender's implicit argument is that an artist's style should be protected... but only from computers. There are a whole mess of underlying philosophical and legal issues in the idea of basically expanding IP to include style, whether or not the imitator is a machine. Not only does a simplified take fail to serve artists in the long term, it also fails to serve them in the short term. AI art is bad at all sort of things that artists can use to differentiate themselves right now. It produces "average images." As Alex O'Connor points out ChatGPT was completely incapable of something as simple as a full wineglass. I've found the same to be true as well. When there is an overwhelming body of work portraying things one way, the AI is not capable of drawing another way. I've run into this in testing out images with people that have two mouths or four arms, etc. Now perhaps, there is an artist whose work I could reference to get a more specific sample set... BUT most people won't know that. Also, increasingly, just as digital drawing has become a HUGE portion of the artistic market, but people still value works done by hand, it shows that true fans of art do really care about connection to the artists. They love the tangibility, the story of the art's inspiration, being connected to someone. No, casual fans who hate paying for anything won't care. However, people (like Lavender) who are good at connecting with their audience will always capture the true fans (and those that are willing to spend the most money on art) because they are looking for that connection. Even if AI could be as creative as Lavender, and post videos with a fake voice, and although there will undoubtedly be some portion of the market that does care... there will also always be the people that do care. We can push back on people who don't care, as though yelling at them will change the value they put on real artists... but the biggest impact on artists will not be AI stealing their style. In part because, most artists won't get big enough for people to recognize them at all. The biggest impact on an artist will be whether or not they can connect with the most engaged (and lucrative) patrons.