Raw LLM Responses

I'm in a complicated state. _(And on no one side. Just thought it's needed to be mentioned at the top)_ On the one fine interaction manipulator - I do agree that making money from the work of others by just copying them is bad. On the other few - the AI still lays on the edge of it, in a quantum state of not crossing the line and being behind it. What it does is basically as follows: 1. look up publicly available pictures on the internet; 2. analyse that picture, remember the composition, what detail how called and how can something look. It does so by listening to its "mentor" (who is likely an other program, not even an AI), who spouts random commands and changes its neurons, until AI gets the answer right; 3. make new compositions by taking remembered details and arranging them in a suitable answer that fits a new, "user's" command. In a nutshell, something like this. And I'm really, really bothered by both sides of this dispute. Like, not only it is but a substitute for a real future AS artist (I mean, of course that's what AI is by definition now is, a tool, but still...), but companies and artists really believe that it is _qualified enough_ to actually replace artists already?! This? That half-butchered Alzheimer Intelligence? I'm exaggerating at this moment because of some emotions, but the actual epithet would be close. Sure, I have a limited amount of knowledge about those projects, maybe I don't know something, but so far it seems incomplete and really lacking reason for / definitely in no state to actually blame the _AI,_ the tool(!) for what people do. As I said already, stealing part sucks. But also, don't forget that this is what any other artists does as well - looking up the references. [6:35 I listened to the end of the video, so if you're here already, first - try to finish reading this, and second - answer me, do _you_ understand how the AI work? This question's relevance should be understood later on, hence why I'm asking to read to the end] But the third point of the plan above is what makes it bad, since it apparently doesn't use its own tools to paint similar parts, instead taking from the original? Or does it? After all, those art mistakes may be those tools applied in the wrong way by the imperfect painting algorithm, or may just be a "photoshop errors" of parts not connected in the right way. And not knowing the code of those algorithms I can't say for sure which one it is. In _(a too long, but not downsizable)_ conclusion: Yeah, I can understand concerns of others, but I can't stand on either side due to a lacking info. And there's probably a lot of people like me, some of them "standing up for the AI" due to the overly popular POW of authors that "hate AI (instead of people) for unjust reasons", some "standing up for the artists" because, well, your point is still valid and there's still a chance they just photoshop your arts. But truthfully, there is no info about what they actually do with your art (as far as I'm aware right now) and artists' side is too off-putting right now for the seemingly misdirected complaints. Just as you said (wrote) - AI is amazing and a really good development, but it is what the people actually do with it matters and the people itself who does this, not the AI. And people seem to be too sound about the AI from the outside perspective, that makes an outsider to seemingly take on the opposite position by going "against _your_ group". Just remember that even if you're in your group for the right reasons, doesn't mean that everyone in your group is right or every opposition has an opposite opinion. _(Also, why is this so long? I wanted a shorter comment, why is there so much to say?..)_