Raw LLM Responses

Adding onto this: "It's inevitable!" - said about crypto, did not happen. said about NFTs, did not happen. said about Beanz (if you're old enough to remember those), did not happen. said about the Metaverse, did not happen. said about 3D TVs, did not happen. "The Next Big Thing" is the worst metric of what is "inevitable" and honestly it's the best way to guestimate if something will fail. (and AI is not sustainable, by any measure or means, as a source of generated content.) "It's inspiration!" - people are inspired by depression (Vincent Van Gogh), hallucinations (Edvard Munch), schizophrenia (Yayoi Kusama), and many other mental illnesses. People are inspired by war (Guernica by Picasso, The Third of May 1808 by Francisco Goya, The Corpses of the Brothers De Witt by Jan de Baen), drugs (Jean Cocteau, Andy Warhol, aforementioned Picasso), and crime (Banksy, Shepard Fairey (made that famous Obama poster), John Wayne Gacy). They are not just inspired by landscapes, people and emotions. That's a disrespectful amount of ignorance as to how artists are inspired. Machines are not inspired. Human minds, when creating with their own hands, are inspired. "I'm disabled!" - Drawing and the Blind: Perceptions to Touch, by John Kennedy is a book documenting cases of blind and visually-impaired artists. Desmond Blair, Sarah Biffin, and Alison Lapper all learned how to paint without hands. Timothy John and Peter Dunlap-Shohl made themselves known with their art as their Parkinson's grew worse. Glen Keane, who designed the characters for The Little Mermaid, has aphantasia. Disability is not an excuse for laziness. "It doesn't work!" - Even without the use of Nightshade or Glaze, we are now reaching what is called 'AI cannibalism', where so much AI shit has permeated the internet, AIs are scraping other AI generated content, thus poisoning its own pool without any human interference whatsoever. This IS inevitable, and sadly, you cannot simply weed it out by looking for anything with an 'AI' tag, because more than half of people who use AI, do not apply it. "I tried art, I was bad at it!" - So using a machine to do it is creating art? No, that's settling for less to feel accomplished. The problem is people see art as a goal, or something to be consumed or used, with an end goal. Art is not a consumer item. It is not food. Art is expression, a process, and develops neurons in your brain as you do it. People gave up because they got frustrated. That's on them. At no point, at all, ever, is skill required for art. That's a made up concept. Art is not made to be sold, it's not even made to be seen. It's made because someone wanted to make it. That's it. "It's easier/smarter/gives me more ideas!" - According to a study done by Microsoft and Carnegie Mellon University, AI use actually results in poorer critical thinking skills, assuming that information given by the AI is true when there is no method to verify that information, and causes decline in independent problem-solving. AI is, quite literally, making people stupider, lazier, and worse at solving problems. Coming from a company that added a built-in AI into its very operating system, that's saying a hell of a lot. "I don't need to credit!" - Technically yes, but because there's no force big enough to enforce such a thing on a global scale, millions get away with it. But AI generated content, even content that only has SOME AI contributed to its process, is not copyrightable. Therefore, they cannot say they own it. Meaning that anyone else can, also, use what they made without violating any law. The AI art is not theirs, therefore, whatever they make, isn't their creative expression at all, it's free game. (Please see the "It doesn't work!" part to understand why that's a really bad thing.) It's also impossible to credit tiny pixels. Artists credit other artists and those that don't who get caught get called out. On top of this, it is now 100% legal for an artist (or group, if including the one filed by Getty Images) to sue an AI company for using their artwork or stock images without permission. So yes. There is not only a requirement for credit, there's a requirement for CONSENT. And there is genuine legal repercussions. Just because we haven't seen them on the news, doesn't mean there aren't any. (By extension, it's been ruled that AI art is NOT transformative, therefore not protected under law as 'transformative' in order to escape copyright infringement. Good try, though.) "But artists post their art all the time!" - Yes, under a creative commons license either granted by the website (who has the right to remove that art at any time for any reason), or by offering an example so that the full license or artwork can be purchased. This same logic could be applied to anything posted on the internet. Footage of someone's child at the beach? Photographs of a family? Profiles of a person? Shit, even companies' emails and details are spoofed by scammers to trick people looking for employment into paying hundreds for training that doesn't exist. Just because it's on the internet, doesn't mean it's meant to be freely used, or that it's appropriate to use it that way. "Artists charge too much!" - Artists charge whatever they like. People bring up the banana-taped-to-a-wall thing often so instead I'll give a better example: Jackson Pollock once sold paintings at auction up to hundreds of thousands of dollars. Those paintings were actually large canvases with paint splattered on in different colors, showing bootprints where he clearly stood on it as he poured. Paint splatters. At this point what is defined as 'art worth selling' is so ridiculously subjective there is absolutely NO OBJECTIVE MEASURE as to what counts as art that's worth being sold, at what cost, and to whom. Call it what it is, a budget. If someone's not willing to pay the amount, they don't have to go to that artist. There's thousands to find who would be willing to accept less. "But (insert website) allows it!" - Not all websites that host art and artists do. So no, this is not a metric of how 'worthy' AI art is compared to actual art. A drawing of a butterfly, regardless of detail quality, can be posted on all of those websites without issue. If AI art cannot be universally applied as that butterfly art, then it does not count. Period. "AI thinks like humans do!" - No it does not. AI is binary. It is values, bits and numbers. It does not 'think' at all. Do not anthropomorphize literal code on a screen. Neurons do not 'switch on and off' contrary to popular misinformation. Memories are not stored in binary. We still have no clear definition of what consciousness is and any approach to the idea has been purely philosophical. AI cannot dream. It cannot feel. It does not respond to chemicals or experience chemical imbalances. AI cannot see, it will only 'see' what it is programmed to. If it's not programmed to recognize the shape of a ball, it won't 'see' that ball. (Please look into the study done by the US Marines into using AI for human detection and learn how miserably, hilariously bad it failed to do what it was designed to do.) A baby, however, can see a ball without even knowing what it is or what it's called. At no point, at all, EVER, does AI function like the human brain. You cannot go in and edit values in a human's brain. You cannot change the habits and thoughts of an AI, and no, changing its data pool or functions is not the same. AI cannot, at this day and age, mimic the human brain. We are not in the era of I, Robot let alone Terminator. That is a far-off dream, not a reality. I don't apologize for the ramble, I've had to listen to techbros go "AI is the next stage in evolution" and "AI are superior to humans" and even go as far as "AI is my therapist" (holy fuck) without an ounce of knowledge about how Midjourney or ChatGPT work. Hopefully this pins down some of the other claims people run into.