Raw LLM Responses

I'm one of those tech-nerd-with-empathy AI users. Your take on how to treat AI-generated art I think is spot-on. Regarding whether to consider AI-generated art, I propose that the solution depends on the answer to the question, "Do you consider algorithms art?" Either way, the original artists should be getting a royalty (spoiler alert: the royalties would be tiny), but if you consider algorithms themselves to be art, then the person who generated the AI art is also entitled to monetize their 'work.' IMHO, that monetization should be significantly restricted because of the tiny contribution your work (entire portfolio) contributes to its training data. "Hundreds of pictures every hour." Sorry but I loled at that. It's more like millions of pictures every second. And training still takes *months*, so that should give you a sense of the scale disparity (and why the AI profiteer shouldn't be allowed to charge orders of magnitudes greater than the scales we're talking about). To make sure it remains fair to the original creators, some regulations need to be put in place. Every piece of content needs to specify if there's AI generated content in it. You're starting to see that in some spaces, but it needs to be ubiquitous and mandatory. Once the art lover sees that what they're about to watch was altered with AI, they have sufficient information to conclude that anything in there that may mimic the style, method, etc. of an actual artist is content that relies heavily on that artist but is itself not an authentic piece from that artist. Cite the identified influencer artists contributing to the AI art, pay them for the mention, and everyone's happy. Throw some PSAs in there to increase public awareness.