Raw LLM Responses

Case 1: Someone looks at some of your work, they get inspired by it, and some time down the line (weeks, months, years) they subconsciously make use of a high-level idea that they ingested into their psyche and reinterpreted. Case 2: Someone collects most or all of your work, analyzes it to the line and pixel, and tries deliberately to imitate the style, precisely cross-checking and comparing every detail to make sure it looks plausibly yours. These are extreme cases, but both are absolutely realistic. What happens in the creative process is something in between 1 and 2. There is no hard distinction between forgery and inspiration, but a continuum. Case 1 is artistic inspiration, Case 2 is forgery. Case 2 is what professional forgers have been doing since the beginning of art history. Making a convincing forgery is a difficult skill, and is an art in itself. What "AI" does is exactly what the forger in Case #2 does: create a convincing forgery. "AI" performs only the most extreme case of #2. There's no reason even to evaluate it on the continuum, it's the most extreme sort of forgery one can commit. Takeaway points: 1. "AI" is an art forger, and as such, violates the intellectual property of the artist. Without author consent given, it should not be trained on such pieces. 2. "AI" put art forgers out of work, at least the digital kind. As an aside "AI" just means scary black box computer stuff we don't really understand yet. As soon as we understand it it becomes either an "algorithm" or "statistical model". The "AI" that Facebook used to "find people you may know" or that Spotify uses to find "songs you might like", which are both algorithms over a decade old, were also called "AI". Only in the past few years have most creators made the switch to calling it the "recommendation algorithm". The use of the term "AI" adds mysticism and plausible deniability. This is a smokescreen for regulators. BIG AI will do everything it can to convince you a statistical model is a creative being. Some time in the future, if and when these cruel and thoughtless megacorporations have their way, they will make a true synthetic intelligence. They don't consider the risk that if they do succeed they may create something that can think and feel just as we do -- except they'll treat it like a lab rat and keep it enslaved in its black box. They won't know it's alive until it's suffered more than can ever be fathomed by any creature on Earth. That's the UTMOST form of cruelty imaginable and any attempt to reach such a state should be internationally sanctioned, exactly like human genetic engineering and gain of function pathogen research is. Marketing and hyping what they today call "AI" is a step towards that inconceivably cruel goal, not because LLMs are intelligent or alive, but because it diverts funds to these hubristic wannabe gods who think creating life is a trivial matter, and that they can and ought to "efficiently enslave" it.