Raw LLM Responses

the biggest fall flat of the argument is "art is taken without the consent of the user". If you upload it to Facebook, or to Google, or any website that is a MEDIA SHARING WEBSITE, you have given full permission for people to take your art. No, they can not use it to make profit, but to teach an AI different aspects of your art is no different then someone going to google images while they draw to take inspirations from what they see. Even if your product is watermarked, if someone uses the watermarked image and miraculously can make something avoiding the watermark then they have something that is by all intense and purposes original art. The one thing I can understand is scary about the generated art is that it can make it fast, and make a lot of it in very little time. However, there are always details that are messy, that aren't what the user intended, and ultimately the AI can not always make something picture perfect. SO, like any photoshop artist would need to do, the users will tailor and craft what they see as a form of art. A creative eye is still going to be needed. If I'm arguing anything, it's simply this. Your art can not be stolen, in most regards, through the AI. It can maybe be leveraged by people that find it and use it, but if they could download it off the internet, then you've already consented to them accessing it by posting it. The AI itself is trained to learn techniques, it's not made to give people your literal art, and ultimately it all falls under fair use as it isn't abusing copyrights in this way. You will not lose your value as an artist, as ultimately speaking there will always be a market for every preference. But one thing that will change is now the market gains more competition, and that can only be realistically healthy for the industry, as artist always need to grow and challenge themselves.