Raw LLM Responses

The arguments against this guy get a lot weaker when you consider an AI image generator that doesn't use any stolen works. People seem to mostly be outraged about the money part. It always comes down to money and theft. However, I don't think these people have principled positions outside of the money argument, so with ethically sourced data the argument falls apart. This is the same kind of stupid take that people have when they complain about getting DMCA'd when the favorite game mod or fangame gets a cease and desist. "But they did make any money so why is Nintendo threatening them!?" The reality of the situation is that money was never the issue. Money doesn't matter. It either is, or it isn't stealing. So if they ever create an AI image generator with 100% ethically sourced data, then all the arguments fall flat because no one ever had a principled position. I personally don't think that someone should be able to copyright an AI generated work regardless of whether the work was made from stolen data or not. The fact of the matter is the work wasn't made by a human, so it shouldn't be protected. If your creative work boils down to a single seed value that anyone can copy-paste and generate themselves, then it probably isn't something worth protecting. That being said, the distinction of AI generated and AI assisted work is hard to make and it's not a trivial distinction either. We've run into a bit of a Ship of Theseus paradox here. How much of a work of art can be generated by an AI before it no longer becomes a protected work of art? 10%? 20%? Eventually you have to draw the line somewhere and it will be an arbitrary line. We can't say 0% is the line because then pictures taken on your phone aren't protected, and we can't say 100% because then you can just generate garbage AI images with no artistic input. There's a happy middle ground in there somewhere and as silly as the guy sounds artistic intent is part of the equation.