Raw LLM Responses

Point 1-"It's always been accessible" By the same logic, so has getting to places. You simply need to get up and drag yourself there. There is no need for you to get in a car, or a bike or a plane or a ship. Just drag yourself. "Art" or more accurately, Imagination given visual form, is only accurately accessible after spending considerable time training yourself. AI automates that process and brings you to an acceptable parameter without you have to waste your time on a skill you might not care for. All art forms isn't everyone's cup of tea. But everyone would love an quick and easy service that helps them put pictures to words. Point 2-"Make it ethical enough to not lose your jobs" It's not unethical for you to lose your jobs. It's unethical for them to use your work without consent but there is a lot of nuance to that. But the main point to make here is even if the AI was completely ethical, compensating the artists, artists would still lose your jobs to the AI. Automation exists to replace large parts of the human experience for convenience. It's a "good" thing the same way it's a "good" thing automation made other parts of your life easier and convenient. Point 3-"Gen AI is just stealing" You have somewhat of an comprehensive idea of what Gen AI is so I won't get into it. But understand that you already gave your consent for AI use when you published your work publicly on the internet for the dataset to read like with everything else you share publicly on the internet. There are laws to protect you if they stole something from your private collections like got in your onedrive or gdrive. But if you made it public for all, it's no different than another person looking at your work and creating their artwork derived from it except a million times faster. Yes, the AI's derivative work is just an amalgamation of many things but ultimately, that is by design. With that being said, you can argue about the nature of AI not being as apparent and there is something to be said about what you would consider ethical. But again, it ultimately doesn't matter. Because artist will still be out of the job if they paid a limited about of artists to create a perfectly ethical AI. Because automation exist to replace large parts of the human experience for convivence. Point 4-5 NOW YOU GET IT. See, this should be the real crux of the debate. It should never be about if you think Gen AI is stealing. Or if Gen AI is ethical. Or Gen AI is about accessibility. Automation. People have died over this. People have lost many jobs over this. People have been made powerless over night. We used write physical letters. Hand it to a person who used to run from one end of the world to another. We used to give our clothes to a person who would come collect all clothes and then wash it and bring it back to us. We used to talk to people for service and the people would talk back, personalizing the conversation. And in some cases, we still do. But Automation man. It's been a fear for a long time. Art isn't the first to fall. There have been many before you. In fact, artist used to believe that automation could never take over art like it was doing the other industries and used to be quite a dick about it. But it's just obvious to you now. THIS IS FOR EVERYONE WHO READS THIS COMMENT. Art isn't special. It's just another human experience. But if you were okay with replacing so many other human experience with automation, why should anyone protect the human experience you love? What higher right do you have? And if automation needs to be stopped, why would we stop at art? Why not give back the jobs and the respect to the any other jobs that you disrespectfully let automation take over without putting up a fight? Where were you when the automation came for the service industry? Where were you when automation came for marketing? Where were you when they got rid of bank tellers? Automation comes for all. It doesn't stop for you.