Raw LLM Responses

I am biased as I am not an artist, so I lean slight in favor of AI art. I think it can be used as a tool for an aspiring game designer who simply wouldn’t be able to pay an artist. Problem is, this would also apply to big studios trying to save a quick buck. I am not in favor of AI art being copyrightable under any circumstances. Copyright is supposed to protect HUMANS. So a big studio using it to create a game franchise, well they won’t be able to copyright it. Price to pay for easy art. A small studio may not care too much and just wants to create something fun to make a little bit of money. They aren’t trying to make a game franchise. But, for a studio with established copyrighted franchises like Nintendo, they could then forgo artists and have AI art generate new art on an existing copyright they own. Anything new would be created by a human, then the human instantly fired as a computer takes over from there. AI art is cool for the general public, as the general public doesn’t hire artists full time. (General public may hire an artist for a commissioned work, which would be a massive problem with AI art existing, I could just give my commission prompt to an AI instead of supporting an artist). I want to see artists supported. I think that any art that an AI is trained on should have to obtain permission or a license to use. Since these AI’s are themselves a product that can be used and controlled. You can control what an AI is purposefully trained on. You cannot really control what a human sees and learns from. This would make AI art not free (at least for art that uses licensed work for training). This is just my uneducated take on it as a computer science student interested in learning more about AI and how to make them.