Raw LLM Responses

How it works is essentially a bit like how humans do it... Basically the AI doesn't know what the fuck anything you tell it means until you teach it... You show it enough images of a tiger and it starts to get the idea of what a 'tiger' refers to, sort of like if you walk a person through a museum of tiger images... And then it works from noise to basically create what a tiger is... Whether or not this resembles any of the original images in anyway really depends on how heavily it is trained off of any of those images (if you're doing image to image then obviously the impact will be pretty significant off of that image)... I think it really depends on how its done for if it's stealing anything... I heard one person who hires artists for various projects they make that their artists kinda like it in that a lot of the things they previously would've paid the artist to do were like... Really boring and tedious art that they just needed to get done for a project and now instead they can have their artist focus on the more interesting art that the artists like doing... Or like rather than have an artist draw the same thing 20 different times but slightly different they can just use AI and then get their artist to draw the thing once really well... On the one hand that does mean the artist has less work to be given, on the other hand that can be good for them because they do more interesting work and have more time available to them which if they're a good artist who has lots of people seeking to pay them then that can be nice... Either way they still get paid but it can be more enjoyable... But yeah, I think it can definitely suck for artists who are under less demand for their art... It can be good for other creative people though, like if you're designing a card game your prototype can now have a bunch of art easily that you would not have paid anyone for before because it's all pretty experimental and might never be marketed... I don't really see the demand going away for artists though, I just see people going to them for more complex things... Getting an AI to understand EVERY DETAIL you might want in a complicated image is just way too much of a hassle and it'd be better to just pay a person... Additionally I like writing and one issue I note with AI is it's basically impossible on a technological level I think to teach an AI how to accurately use metaphor, simile and wordplay, particularly metaphor where you use words to mean other words... With how AI works, it just makes no sense for it to be able to do that unless you train it specifically to learn every single metaphor possible (a lot of work) for some unknown reason... It's more understandable for images and training obscure concepts, I don't know why anyone would ever give their time to teach AI how to properly describe a person moving up a tree as an ant... And when NOT to refer to a person moving as an ant in any other circumstances where that'd be confusing af... ALSO if you're of the opinion that AI art is stealing AND that they cannot own the art because the art belongs to the AI legally speaking THEN I think there's an issue... That being that arguably they did not steal your art, the AI stole your art... If you want to argue that they told the AI to steal your art, that's kinda like saying they told the AI what to make which a lot of artists take issue with... I think I'm largely cool with AI, some valid arguments can be made against it in some situations... Like I do recognize AI art as just kinda being inferior in some ways, namely fulfillment... If you're making the AI art, it is ABSOLUTELY less fulfilling to do a really amazing image that way compared to trying to do the best drawing you can possibly do even if it's not all that great... The same goes for if you received the art as a gift, it's much more meaningful to know the person hand-made it (as with any other hand-made product) then if they just bought it at a store or worse used AI... THAT SAID THOUGH, again, if I'm making a prototype card game then it's the card game I need to get my fulfillment out of... Having the art be hand-made would be nice but I would NEVER do that for a bloody proto-type game (now if I was marketing it, whole other story)... All the art is there for is making it so I'm not just looking at a bunch of lifeless pieces of paper with text scribbled on them and that's it... Same with YT thumbnails... I'm not gunna pay an artist to do thumbnails for videos unless it's like MAYBE some super mega important video I expect to blow up on the Internet... Otherwise, much easier to just use AI or do what was already standard (flat out ripping images other people made without crediting them to use their work as part of the thumbnail... Again, this is the norm on YT...) So yeah, reasons I think talented artists will stay relevant are that people appreciate hand-made things because of the journey (and perhaps thought) that happened to make them, and then also sometimes it's just way too difficult to get an AI to grasp all the lighting, angle, distance, accents, etc. details perfectly and it'd be much easier to pay an artist... ALSO on the business side of things it's much more legally sound to just pay an artist to ensure you own the thing if it's a book cover or something when you go to sell it...