Raw LLM Responses

Training an AI model on an artist's work is fair use, and what any artist should have been expecting to happen, going back decades to when futurists were predicting that the internet would become sort of a collective global brain for humanity. Consent is effectively given when a work is created in the modern world -- a world in which such use is inevitable. Or at the very least, consent is effectively given when the work is uploaded to the internet. Artwork created by humans *should* be an all you can eat buffet for training AI models. Of course it should. We can all participate in the training of these models, and that's the right thing to do for the advancement of human civilization and of the technology on which an abundant future depends. In any case, the artworks the models create do not infringe on copyright, as they are new, unique works. Would a human artist create a three armed bikini model, or an image of a person with wonky looking hands, teeth, and eyes? Even when the models become better at anatomy and composition, their artistic creations will still be new, unique works. All art is iterative or derivative at some level, and though vast, there is only a finite number of possible combinations of pixels for any given image format -- and even fewer combinations of pixels that would be pleasing to the human eye, or recognizable as specific objects. Artists learn from looking at what's been done before. The fact that a generative AI model is doing this instead of a human artist doesn't really matter. It's still *not* copyright infringement. Artists should stop feeling like victims of this new technology and focus instead on using it to improve their process so that they can remain competitive if that's their goal. Use the tools you are being given. Don't waste your time feeling indignant about how the tools were created, and don't try to drag the rest of the creative community into your pit of selfish Luddism. Be resilient and adapt!