Raw LLM Responses

As a non-artist that admires the talent needed for making art I personally feel that both sides have their pitfalls. On the artist side the pitfall I feel is the idea that "all AI art is bad" and I personally feel that this is not true if some conditions are met, those being: The AI art is not being used for profit in any way or monitzed in any way, the source for the AI training data is 100% from consenting artists to their art being used for training data, the AI art is not being put out in public like being posted to social media or put on a physical photo for like a flyer, and the artists that had their art used as training data being credited and recommend in the application for making the AI art On the "AI dudes" side the pitfall is, is that all 4 of the conditions are most often not met, the applications making the AI art don't credit anyone for being used in the training data from what I have seen, AI art are is often put out in public(mostly on social media but I have seen flyers with AI art) and that doesn't give a disclaimer that it is AI art as well as not crediting any artists for being used in the training data, in the case of Twitter Blue engagment to that account gives money to that Twitter Blue account so the posts are monitzed, and the artists as shown in this video and many other cases are not consenting to being used in the training data at all. So both sides have their pitfalls but I believe that the artists should not have to poison their art to disrupt AI scrapers as they didn't start this so they have the moral high ground for now. If you disagree with me feel free to reply to this comment with your own opinion, I am open to any opinions!