Raw LLM Responses

Maybe this is the wrong place to put these thoughts, but here are my current thoughts around AI art (subject to change over time of course...) * As with any new technology, there's tons of hype around it right now, with people really excited about it's potential, what might become possible as it improves, etc. But, like with everything that gets hyped up, I'm sure that we'll collectively come to the realization that it's not actually living up to all the hype - we'll find limitations that can't be fixed any time soon, we'll get used to seeing AI art and it'll get old, etc. In the end, nothing compared to original works of art. Original work is put together with intent and feeling, and sometimes there may even be interesting backstories behind it. AI art tends to just smudge together - it'll never be as good. * I do feel like there is a place for this lesser-quality AI art in our world. Not everyone is an artist, but there are many places where art is demanded from us. For example, I work in programming, and as such, read many abstract articles that often feature some picture at the top. In the past, that featured picture would usually be a stock photo - which is quite bland. Now days, it's becoming more common to see little pieces of AI art. It's obviously AI art, and it's obviously lesser quality compared to something hand-crafted, but hand-crafted art was never an option - I certainly don't expect most expert programmers to also be expert artists. At least the AI art lets the article writer put a little more personality into their article compared to stock photography. It's a similar story with video thumbnails and any other place on the internet where non-artists may be required to use art. * I always find it a little odd whenever someone talks about this as people "stealing" the art. We're putting pictures on the public internet, available for everyone to see, both humans and bots alike, and have been doing this for a very long time. And AI has been training off of this public data for a long time. And that's generally been an understood concept - the internet is public. And then AI got better, and suddenly this is now stealing? That being said, I am starting to soften on this viewpoint - I think what matters is if you're able to use an AI art generator to infringe on copyright in an obvious way. For example, the WALL-E character is copyrighted - people aren't allowed to sell derivative works that feature WALL-E, and yet, AI-art generators are making money, and it's trivial to ask them for a piece of art featuring WALL-E - that seems like a problem. On the other hand, take something like Chrome's new background generator - you're not allowed to give it arbitrary prompts, instead, you pick from drop-downs to decide what you want it to generate, and then it'll generate some options for you. This means you're not allowed to ask it to do something in the form of X artist, or containing Y character, and the art it produces won't closely resemble any existing piece of art (as far as I know). All this being said, I am sympathetic towards the damage it's causing on artists - the fact that original works are being valued less than they should because everyone's hyped up on AI art. I hope that hype dies down some and people can remember their appreciation for "real" art.