Raw LLM Responses

hahahaha, all that will happen is that Ai will be trained to deal with glaze. either they detect and strip the protection or drop your data and it'll be so insignificant to the dataset over all that nothing will change about the output. yet another arms race. except that there's billions being spent on generative Ai and very little being spent on poisoning. I already know where this is going, artists, just like everybody else who has faced automation for the last 200 years, will lose. you guys might know a lot about making pictures, but you can't see the bigger picture or seem to be entirely ignorant of larger patterns that have been playing out for hundreds of years by forces that will simply crush you if you raise an issue. coal miners and oil riggers went against these forces, and they lost, some of the hardest men on the planet lost against this force of modernisation and you think you stand a chance, oh please, tell me another one, that's hilarious. the idea of mass copyright infringement in this context is absurd anyway, the same process that the human brain uses to create is based on the process of observation and derivation anyway, that's the point, I suspect there's an element of ego/arrogance/offence "how dare you reduce my art to an algorithm" about this. it's supremely arrogant to think that there's anything new under the sun or that any artwork you create is truly original, even furries aren't new, people have been role playing as animals for thousands of years... and the fact is, the Ais take so many CONTEXTUAL cues and information about what a thing is rather than specific image content, and turns that into matrices of numbers that DO NOT RESEMBLE THE ORIGINAL IN ANY WAY and cannot in any meaningful way be interpreted as anything more then general metadata, that I DOUBT ANY copyright infringement case regarding generative Ai will ever get anywhere significant. it'll be compared to how people draw inspiration from influences around them and yet that is not infringement being comparable to what an Ai does and that'll be it, a judge will consider that a reasonable argument. the key here is they're not looking to lift your images, they're trying to figure out contextual information from so many images that no single one could be reasonably argued in a court of law, to be infringed upon, which would be comparable to what your brain does when you imagine and create things anyway, you're just not aware of it and possessed of some unjustified feelings about what inspires you being unique and original, like most artists, that's all. in short, artists are out of touch. I suggest you figure out how to make the best of the new tools before those without your issues just replace you using those tools, same thing happened to portraiture artists when the camera came along, deal with it, it's the inevitable march of progress and all of it was built on corporations stealing from others. that's always been the case. you were the dummies who put images on the internet of all places, where copyright has NEVER been respected or cared about by anybody who had the ability to either keep themselves anonymous or have so much cash they can just shrug off lawsuits. congrats, you played yourselves in the first place. like we can complain all we want about what should be, but the best cure is prevention... it was too late once people started sharing artwork online, generative Ai was inevitable once the computer age began. anybody who wasn't anticipating this simply WASNT PAYING ATTENTION and it's on them for not doing so. sorry, not sorry, it's your own duty to be aware of your environment and not on others to cater to you. blame yourselves for being so short sighted, not keeping ahead of things and not anticipating trends. you people have never worked a day of office work in your lives, I'd guess, because in that world, not owning any copyright for anything you do, is normal, you lot are just entitled af. nobody said your industry would be untouched by tech, nobody guaranteed that or agreed to that, too fricking bad! i can guarantee there are people with far less issues with the tech lining up to replace you anywhere you refuse to tread because of the tech, including the speed with which you turn out works compared to those who will. so that's game over there, you'll be naturally selected out by the market. diddums. the same corporations who you're griping about also won't hire people who don't use it on principle, just like the actors are finding out they won't get work if they don't sign away their voice and 3d scans. maybe you should do what I did... learn to code.