Raw LLM Responses

Your implication from the fact of art forgery being already criticized to AI generated art being frowned upon for similar reasons when used for commercial gain needs to be complemented with other arguments to really distance AI generation from human inspiration. This is because AI generated art can utilize large datasets without ever outputting a perfect replica of any of the inputs, so the comparison with human forgery becomes irrelevant. Yes there are many empirical differences between AI generation and human inspiration, but many on the AI side have an out, which is that, at a meta enough level, they are identical: they both deal in information transfer. When I look at an art piece, it gets electrically encoded in my brain, and through a series of transformations that co-opt other neuronal firings, all this information is processed into a piece that I now legally own (if no infringements are done). On a very formal level, AI generation participates in the same type of processing, with the difference being that it is much more algorithmically explicit than whatever goes on in our brains. I feel that the main way the artist's ethical battle against AI can be won is by focusing on other concepts - e.g., ownership, in that the use of AI technology does not entail one owning a piece of generated art, even if that piece has no features discernibly like those in other copyrighted images (one may comment that even if this is the case, one could in principle trace back to whatever an AI generated art piece was based on if one had access to the algorithm and the data set, but remember that, because AI generation and human inspiration are formally identical at a very abstract level, one could in theory do the same for human art and trace back from an art piece to what that artist had to use in order to be inspired); or, to use another concept, that the negative utility experienced by artists of having AI generated art be owned by individuals is just too great to justify a laissez-faire approach.