Raw LLM Responses

Without the aspect of training on images who's creators didn't consent to having their style emulated, I think AI art could have a valid place. If the only AI models allowed to exist only contain data who's creator specifically consented to training that model with, then AI art tools will only ever take the form of standalone themed applications. Instead of being able to rob artists who's work is difficult to replicate and easy to distinguish of potential success, entities wishing to train an image generating AI model with intent to sell a license to access said model would be forced to work with different kinds of artists to create specific art tools. You might see an AI model trained on images of suspect scetches to replicate the process of creating an effective one from word prompts. Maybe a tool that allows teachers to easily create more colorful and visually stimulating assignments, decorations, educational slides, etc. because it's been trained on data supplied by artists that normally would just put that sort of thing out onto the internet for teachers to use freely. This would be a chance for them to make money off of their art and help more teachers more effectively. I can see alot of ways image generation could be undeniably, exclusively beneficial to eveyone involved. But it's like sex. If everyone is going to walk away feeling happy and even lucky, there has to be consent from all parties.