Raw LLM Responses

I did not see that thesis being covered, so I will leave it there. AI is legit, because the concept of intelectual property is not. Artist who say that AI "steals" their art, what is actually "stealing" ? If you made an art on a piece of paper and I took this paper with me withouth your permission, what happened is stealing. The paper you draw on was your paper. But what if I take a picture of your art and print it? Did I steal anything? Or, to put in other words, is there something I took from you? Is there anything what became less of what you had? No, nothing. What happened can be called doubling. A copy was made and there is nothing I took from you. So where then AI "steals" art exactly? AI basically performs same result as a person would have take an art on draw it 1 to 1 or heavily relying on the original art. The difference between AI and a human is purely technical here (we leave emotional aspect out). I guess the most absurd thing I saw regarding intelectuall property in art was fonts for which you have to pay. Just to have a slightly curved line, just to have a different serif, just to have a different capital G. Writing these letters without permission of some guys would make me break someone`s rights. Yet, I believe the rights which were broken are mine. Because I am the one, who with my brush and board, my property, is ultimetly restricted in the usage, restricted writing letter with a nice curve to it. By the way, have you wondered how much money big corporations you hate so much make money on this "intelectual property" ? How much they can just buy and "own" to make constant profit, restricting all people around the globe to use their tools they own, their hands and skills they have. If we take broader, how healthcare companies use intelectual property on medicine which could save health and maybe lifes of people, but restricted to use our tools to replicate the natural formula, because, apperently, using your own machines and chemicals you have in a specific way is "theft" of someone... But back to AI. Even though AI does not violate anyone`s rights, I share the concern about the quiality of content. And that is something human artists can do better sure, technically and conceptually wise, and that is why we (I also work in a creartive field) will be always needed. I share the idea of getting rid of "copyrights" and insted refer to "copylefts", ensuring the avaliabilty of art and information in general. And so we could create more close communities supporting each other, including financially, and having active vieweres, customers, admires, who support their creators and communities and open-source projects like Blender, for what we do and what we bring to the table. I wish we were more egalitarian rather than dealing with who "owns" a replicated pixel in the Internet.