Raw LLM Responses

"I don't see one image let alone billions of imagery and instantly like, you know, archive it in my mind and then I'm able to generate exact copies or similar copies in the blink of an eye." - Karla Ortiz Her argument is basically that she's not as fast at processing visual data, and doesn't have the same sort of memory capabilities, as an AI image generator. Therefore the image generator has an "unfair advantage." BS. It's just a different kind of mind. A different technology or way of doing the same sort of thing that the human mind does -- the externalization of mental functions to a system that's more efficient in particular ways. You can try to be John Henry the steel-driving man, try to beat the machine, but it didn't end well for that folk hero. Better to let the technologists do what they do best and develop tools that will improve artist workflows and help democratize the creative process. Human visual artists develop their individual style on the basis of everything they've taken in through their eyes over the course of their lives. That includes looking at sunsets, architecture, and of course, all the paintings and art they've ever looked at, most of which was copyrighted. It seems only fair to let image generators do the same, and since they don't have robot bodies with eyes, they have to be fed images from the internet. As long as they aren't exactly reproducing specific works, there's no copyright violation in this process, unless we want to grant human visual artists special fair use rights that image generators don't have, and hold back the advancement of artistic tools in the process. To do that would be the response of a Luddite. Perhaps any artist who wishes to deny the image generators access to training data has a responsibility to fund the development of robot bodies and eyes for them, so that they can learn in the same way that human artists do.