Raw LLM Responses

I believe the main anti-AI arguments used here fail. Here's why: 1. We're ok with generic brand claritin, and generic art isn't a threat to 'living artists' but we need to save the entry-level stuff? Market competition on almost all goods has already destroyed the ability of artisans to make a living on the majority of goods. We can debate the merits of this, but we all buy industrial products. Some great pottery makers, jewelers, and soap-makers still exist, but very few at the entry level, which is all taken up by industrial machines. This also goes against the 'scale' argument mentioned - the AI can do it billions of times, whereas a human copier is slower, therefore humans learning from the art is fine, whereas AI is not. 2. We're ok with AI doing scientific research, helping with search, etc. but not creative works. So, it's ok if it trains on science and math papers whose authors didn't consent and it 'stealing' that data and human effort, but it's not ok when it trains on novels and paintings? 3. "The computer can't make its own style, while humans inevitably do." This is a matter for each individual work that is produced no? Some artists get in trouble for plagiarizing others, others don't. We check on a case by case basis. We can do the same for AI art. Even so, working with AI art generating models you will notice a distinct style to each that is different from any specific human style and from each other. "It's very different when I make a WoT knockoff, with all my amalgamation of influences, but with me saying 'here is the art I want to make'." - many of the arguments here feel like hand-wavy, more or less the woo-woo/soul argument. Sure, humans have more of a real 'intention' to make the art than the AI does, but why should that matter if people enjoy the end product? The 'happy accidents' argument also doesn't help, you can set AIs to have more or less 'randomness' in their creativity through a setting called temperature. There's nuance here, for sure, but nothing that seems knockdown. 4. The argument that we should do art for art's sake, for our own sake is well-taken. That's what most hobbies are about. AI (to my knowledge) doesn't stop us from pursuing hobbies. In fact, if it could do most of our work, then we should theoretically have a lot more time to pursue leisurely activities.