Raw LLM Responses

"Trained off of" and "Copying" are two different subjects. The AI is not copying the artist's work, it's using it as reference and you know that. None of the generated images you showed were direct copies of the actual photographs in the database. There are derivative works available ANYWHERE created by other people that are less than 1% off the original piece and, in almost every occassion, everyone is fine with it. Artists "can't prove" their work has been used by looking at AI art output because it's not the same art and it's not infringement. A simple search into copyright law shows that. Every single artist the world over has learned to create by studying other artists and copying their styles and methods to some degree - were we able to dissect the human brain and pull out the images of other artist's work that influenced their style, would we also be calling for lawsuits and demanding protection? Either AI is here to aide humanity and propel us into the future wholesale or it isn't. The notion of trying to contain certain aspects of it because it impacts one particular segment of the population is untenable. I further think you realize the "cat is out of the bag", so to speak, and that, even if lawsuits and software were to completely quell the future ingestion of art into these data sets, the existing data is already to a point where it doesn't need additional input in order to continue to produce viable, usable pieces. That doesn't even account for the capability of individuals to be able to create their own datasets (albeit on much smaller scales) to produce whatever they want. Pandora's Box has been opened, the ship has sailed, the genie is out of the bottle...we can lament its creation, but we can't stop its progress. No amount of legislation in the world will prevent people from continuing to expand the capabilities of these models - whether it's to tell a better knock-knock joke or to solve world hunger.