Raw LLM Responses

Most respectfully and with good wishes, I think you make several good points, but just not many. There is also several misstatements of fact. (let's not look past the groups that are trying to keep AI availability free and not commercialize it have been the most attacked. So you have artist HELPING the commercialization of AI use. We can't let our emotion overcome our common sense. I have listened closely to experienced users on both sides. Experienced people agree with you in that AI is here to stay. It is a tool, that will be used. not to replace, but to be part of an overall process. I understand why some artists don't like that their art is being collected for LAIN and other modeling design systems. I don't like that my personal data is packaged and sold millions of times a day, or used to target advertising at me. It sucks. Yet we keep putting out work online and on social media because we have been trained to believe we have to. If you do that, your work WILL be collected legally and used to develop and train AI brains. Those people telling you a style cannot be copyrighted are totally correct. I have read enough on the process to feel that, in my opinion, AI is training on styles just as a human brain does, to the point thaat ai almost using the same neural process. . Just billions of times faster and better. Which is scary, but history would lean that it is totally legal and ethical. So that is the back end. That is the AI at work. Next we come to the point about commercialization and i am "almost" in total agreement with you there. Stable Diffusion has been very "weaselly" about how it has tried to say it wants to protect art on one hand, while locking their model into a commercialized product in the other. Again, ironically, the one group who is trying to NOT commercialize their model Unstable Diffusion, has been attacked the hardest, with numerous false allegations made and even violent threats. We should not be going there. Now we come to the Ai user. You have shown several model creators using your images and ONLY your images to create models. I am assuming you are suing them? You see we have perfectly good laws that are already in place to protect artist. If I use "Greg Rutkowsky" as prompt word for image of a detailed painting of a 1976 El Camino that looks nothing like what he would ever draw. I am not breaking a law and yes, there is a reason you would prompt that way. Now, If i try to create an image that looks just like Rutkowsky's work, i am clearly breaking existing law and he can sue me and hold ME accountable. Not the AI i used, but me. If i try to make art and claim it was made by you, that is forgery. (Although I would have a much harder time doing that with AI, than I would with simple photoshop and inks.) Interesting that you brought up music because I think music and the sampling issues of the past 30 years will be the legal basis AI is judged on. I can sample copyrighted material if the majority of work I create is original. I can even profit from that work. My hope is a bit like yours. I hope the professional artist and AI experts will become more involved and create a dialogue worth having. I wish the amateur artist and the New Ai users would turn the heat and hate down a bit. I am old enough to have been there when a little box called a "Macintosh" got dropped on a graphic designer's desk. As artist, we got through that, and we can get through this. The best to you and Merry Christmas. My wish for 2023 is that people on both sides of this issue learn more and attack less.