Raw LLM Responses

Hello, tech bro here who dabble in AI, both local and API. Not an artist. Y'all need to realize that AI exists only in the digital. If you are finding yourself in direct competition with AI, that means you work strictly in the digital field and may need to consider getting a skill that translates into something tangible in the real world. Not trying to be a smartass or offensive, just being realistic. There are several big questions here... For instance... Nature can create stunning visuals... When you take a photograph of nature, or even just get out there and you put up a canvas and you start painting some vista, and present it as 'your work', is it actually your work or have you just 'stolen' a piece of nature and presented it as your own? Think of all the jobs that have been replaced by computers, hell, simply technology, through the time, all the jobs replaced by the internet... You say the AI have 'stolen' the art? Well... any human is able to look at art, and recreate the style, and the original artist has no recourse against it. AI is just MUCH better and faster at that... A STYLE is NOT copyrightable. That's just fact. Just because you have to study for thousands upon thousands of hours to learn to combine different styles and AI can seemingly do it instantaneously... The fact is, it's not.. It's been trained over a longer period, probably running for virtually thousands, maybe tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of hours; the difference is it never forgets, so it retains EVERYTHING it learns unlike us mere mortals, who after a long period may only remember the gist, or specific fractions of a broader whole. This is not an inherent issue with the technology, it's a strength. Also... How do you quantify the value and intistric artistry from pixels on a screen. Digital art is simply that; digital. It's not actually real, it doesn't actually exist. The data exists as electrical states in circuits in your hardware, but the actual art itself, it doesn't truly exist, only in some abstract form. And the best way for us to understand and experience it is as displaying a certain set of pixels on a monitor, or playing specific frequencies at the right time (for TTS), or putting words in a specific order related to their statistical relationship to each other as well as the prompt that triggered it (LLMs)... There's no taste, smell, touch or even ACTUAL visual of it; the colors may be vastly different or distorted comparing 2 different monitors... What makes YOUR pixels better, purer and truer than the pixels created by say, an image diffusion model? Because you set them manually? Okay so how about people using filters and tools and scripts, etc, completely automated ones, in photoshop and elsewhere, and no one bats an eye. Those pixels are somehow realer, truer and more artistic? - Do you not all understand how arbitrary you guys ruleset is... Let me quote something I saw mentioned on another 'doomsaying' video about AI (also, it's always the image diffusion models people are up in arms about here on Youtube, never the language models - It's cause y'all are art majors... You are tool users, not actual skilled people... Just like a photographer is a tool user, so take his tools away (camera) and be comes useless) "The better the AI gets, the more able to produce an accurate image at a lazy prompt etc etc., the MORE replaceable the "prompter" becomes. They all think they are the future because "AI art is coming just deal with it", but the reality is that once everyone can make "AI art", no one will care about AI "art"." Try re-reading the above sentence but replace 'AI' with 'Photography', then take a step back and realize how it's not only too late, but it's illogical not to embrace it. "The better photography gets, the more able to produce an accurate image at a lazy framer etc etc., the MORE replaceable the "photographer" becomes. They all think they are the future because "Photography is coming just deal with it", but the reality is that once everyone can take 'photos', no one will care about photographical "art". Yeah... do any of you ACTUALLY believe the above? No?... Did photography remove other forms of artform?