Raw LLM Responses

This whole issue is overblown. Same panic we saw with digital art itself, threatening to "ruin" art and make artists "cheaters," so said the domain of traditional art. Mind you, traditional art is still around, alive and kicking. Everything that traditional artists once (and perhaps some still) feared as "cheating" or "not true art" or "stealing" when it comes to digital art, A.I.-assisted tools and A.I. (Machine Learning) image generators are literally just automating what digital artists have already long been doing, typically with subpar results (because A.I. cannot truly create or master the details the way human artists can). The irony about A.I. image generation is, A.I. (Machine Learning) wouldn't be able to do what it does, if sources like ArtStation weren't so flooded with human artists all posting the same ol' stuff over and over again, with little originality. Everything people are complaining about what A.I. (Machine Learning) does, humans are already doing, ad nauseum. I mean, how many: • Call-of-Duty-style portfolio pieces • busty anime girls (increasingly from artists in China) • League-of-Legends-style hand-painted props • WLOP-style smoothed-painterly portraits • art students' first works ...does one website need? You're making it easy for A.I. to emulate your work when you flood ArtStation with the same ol' stuff, folks. A.I. (Machine Learning) is just automating some of what humans are already overdoing, so often to the point that it can now be largely automated. And let's also not act like ArtStation is some holy mecca for artworks--it's already long been the home to some less-than-"artistic" works, long before A.I. recently came into wider view. How many tasteless pinup-style commission artworks and sloppy DeviantArt-esque novice artworks and amateur nobodies who'll never work for the industry also flood ArtStation? ArtStation isn't holy. It's already a home for the ad-nauseum. Machines aren't replacing artists. If anything, art is the most future-proof sector of jobs in the world. Industries all come and go, but artists have been around for millennia. We're fine, folks. Machines are employed by people. That means they'll always be tools. All machines are an extension of the human will--not a replacement for it. The best thing to do is be open to embracing the tool in one's professional pipeline and show the world that artists use it better than anyone else can. I've yet to see the best of A.I.-generated results match or best the results of the best human artists. And I'm not buying for a second that qualified artists are "losing jobs" because of A.I.--I call "BS." There's no way top studios are using these kitschy, often sloppier results from A.I. as a replacement for humans who can custom-make any idea a studio needs. People are just resorting to the same nonsense some traditional artists did back when digital art was at its advent, claiming it'll ruin jobs.