Raw LLM Responses

I do agree that generating models based on the images of others is a bad thing wihout giving credits to the artists, asking for their permission or giving them royalties every time someone uses a model that is trained on their art. It would be best if AI image generators are trained on public domain art and royalty free art. Do I dislike the technology itself? No, not at all. I have gotten way more creative, and am making characters for scripts that I'm writing. These image generators are tools. You can use them for anything. You can bash the images you make in Photoshop, you can use them as referances for your own painting and drawing style. You can use them for animation and rotoscoping. You can import the images into 3D modeling programs and develop them further there. You don't have to use the images that comes straight out of the AI generators. You can inpaint them and make them different, like you remix and sample songs from other artists. Hip-hop is exactly like that. Most electronic music samples someone. And most remixes are made not to make money. They are made to be played in clubs and shared for free. To sell a remix you have to pay and get rights to use the samples you use, as long as they are recognizable. You can make art like that too. That's how most artists work anyways, as they are all influenced by someone. Is it difficult to paint and draw and make your own style? Sure, it takes a lot of time and practice. But is it theft to generate an image in the style of someone you admire? No, it is not. Is it cheating? Sure, you can say that, but it really isn't. Can you paint and draw with an image generator? No, you can't. Do they produce something that looks like a drawing? Yes, but it takes hundreds, if not thousands of generations to make something that looks promising. Do you think that RZA from Wu-Tang clan just samples a few songs and puts it all together in 5 minutes? No. It takes hours, days, weeks and years to make a good beat. It's exactly like that with AI image generators and digital art too. It doesn't instantly give you something that I'd consider great. Is making a remix cheating? You can say that too. But at the end of the day, making your own artwork based on someone else's artwork takes a lot of time and creativity on your own too. It might even take as much time as it takes to put wax paper over someone's drawing, copy the drawing line by line and put it on another piece of paper, or draw and paint something from scratch. For someone who doesn't know how to draw or paint, it's a brilliant tool. I can make images that I can insert into storyboards without drawing it all myself or hiring someone to draw for me. Therefore, I do not feel any resentment regarding the people who use these AI image generators. If I can save time to do my own work, I'm more than happy with that. If I had a robot who could fix my car better than a mechanic, and it was cheaper, I'd buy it in a heartbeat. Also, as long as the art that is made with the softwares does not resemble any other artwork or image out there, I'm not against selling the art either. Are the creators of the softwares to blame? No, they are not! Why not? BECAUSE THE SOFTWARE IS OPEN SOURCE AND FREE FOR ALL TO USE! Yes, it is. Stable Diffusion, which is the most used image generator, is open source and free! A program like Midjourney is not, however, and it is trained on certain stylized art, and they charge people money to use it. That is a different story. Like I said before. They have taken the art of people without compensation or any sort of permission. That is wrong. I do see the problem of artists getting jacked and that people make images similar to people they admire so that they can earn money from that style too. However, this is happening in the music industry all the time. How many similar songs do you hear on the radio? Take hip-hop as an example. Most hip-hop songs have something in common. Most punk songs have something in common. Most rock songs have something in common. Why should art be any different? Graffitti art is exactly like this. Most of it is very similar, and all graffitti artists and street artists influence eachother. However, if you're going to sell art, especially AI generated art that looks very similar to someone else, and is used with a model trained on images of specific artists, there should be some sort of compensation. I do agree with that. But don't blame people for using these generators and creating art with them. People use them in many different ways. People who are really talented make amazing stuff that is unlike anything I've ever seen before. So there is some kind of balance here. You can't blame everyone for using it. In conclusion, I'll end where I started. Every image used for training should be compensated somehow, and an image should not get used if there is no permission to use it for training a model. However, anyone can train a model. All you need is 10 images to train a model for a certain style. It is unavoidable. There is no way back. An image generator is like a sound sampler. It is a tool. All you can do is to regulate how it is used. That is all.