Raw LLM Responses

I think your concern being mainly focused on how humans will abuse AI Art is valid. When this first began, I searched around the internet and found an “Artist VS AI art” video where they payed an artist to create art from the same prompt that they put into an AI. In almost every case the human was able to create a more specific, accurate, and uniquely stylized art piece…however the number of times the purchaser was scammed (either because the art they received was stolen, or because they never received any art at all) was nearly 50%. And that will only get worse as AI art becomes closer and closer to human artwork. — I also wanted to bring up another issue you didn’t touch on, which is the art theft of the AI itself. Many of the training images were taken from artists without their consent—and without those images the AI couldn’t do what it does nor improve at the rate it is improving. And yet the AI companies are profiting off their AI generators (Ex. The one you used only allowed you to test it for free 5 times, then you had to pay). This basically amounts to the companies profiting off the art of real artists who never saw any compensation. That’s one of my biggest concerns before I can accept AI art as a tool. There’s even multiple lawsuits about it happening right now—including from companies like Getty Images. Now obviously there are fair use laws and such, but I’m not trying to say that the art the AI PRODUCES is stolen/too close to the original, merely that the data they needed to create and improve their AI WAS. And that those stolen pieces deserve compensation for helping to create these AI generators. Whether my opinions will be reflected by the court cases, who knows, but it simply feels unjust to me as it stands.