Raw LLM Responses

As someone with real machine learning experience, I don't see any fundamental difference between how you (or any artist) learned to create their own art and how the ai does, so I don't see the fact that they "learn by observing copyrighted images" as a real problem. Learning and practicing by copying the works of artists that came before is the only real way to learn, in fact. This is exactly the same way human artists learn; the only difference is in the scale and speed of how fast they can learn and practice. No human artist is creating art completely out of thin air either, they are creating it out of their own brain, which has influenced by every other piece of art that brain has seen and retained up to that point. I do worry for artists in the somewhat near future, though, the same way I worry for my own job(ML software developer) in slightly longer timeframe(10 years from now I expect most software development to be done by AI). I think it's important to start having these discussing and even potentially considering new legislation. The AI art I currently have a problem with isn't actually a problem with the AI, but rather a problem I have with the human that's prompting the AI. Telling an AI to create a new series works in the exact style of a particular artists, and then trying to sell that art with the added price bonus of that comes from the reputation of that copied artists work. I'm not sure how to legislate that, but I feel like the copied artists should receive compensation. Other situations where the ai is drawing from multiple artists to create something completely never seen before...I don't see anything wrong with that, and that's exactly what human artists do atm. For example "give me a painting of Shibuya crossing at night, but in a style that's a mix of 30% Thomas Kinkade, 30% Claude Monet, 10% Pierre-Auguste Renoir, 10% Vincent van Gogh, 10% Kitagawa Utamaro, and 10% Yokoyama Taikan". It's not outright copying anyone artists, but rather taking bits and pieces of their styles(just as humans do), and mashing it together with others styles to create something completely new. One think I'd like to see legislation wise that I don't think would be too hard to pass is, any art created by an AI should be required to be clearly marked as "AI Generated". There will come a point in time where the quality of AI art is 100% as good as even the bests human artists(we're not there yet), but I think that many humans(myself included) will pay extra for a similar quality work, just because it was created by a real human. There are a few things I think Artists can do to protect themselves going forward. 1. Use the AI as a tool. Use it to generate prototypes and use those for inspiration. 2. Switch to more physical mediums. Machinery is way behind AI atm, and it will be a long time before machines are going to be creating physical art. For programmers like me, I think we're a little more screwed, as we don't have that physical medium to fall back on, and other humans don't care if their software is written by a human or not.