Raw LLM Responses

My understanding of how AI art works is that it pretty much "looks at" images to try and recognize patterns and create images based on the patterns it finds. For that reason, I don't know if they'll end up needing to exclude copyrighted material from the data set, because it technically isn't copying the images it's references the same way as you may copy an MP3, or save an image from the web to your computer for example. Now, if someone uses AI to purposely re-create a copyrighted work, character, or someone's likeness, I could see them getting in trouble, but that would be a case of an individual purposely using AI for that reason. That being said, there is apparently a court case that should be able to settle things. Either way, I do think it would be a nice courtesy for the data set managers to work with image hosts and artists to come up with an easy way for people to opt out, whether they legally need to or not. I do think AI art is here to stay, and it will most likely create a challenge for artists, as it enables more people to create more content, which is more competition. I also think there will always be a market for purely human made art, and that great artists will still get work. I also think that there's potential for artists to use AI art as a base and then use their abilities to add on to create their own pieces; some artists might want to consider one day using AI as a tool to assist them rather than simply an obstacle to try to get past. Overall I am not against AI art, but I think it has improved and should continue to improve both in the quality of what it can generate and how it handles the ethics of its internal workings.