Raw LLM Responses

The fact that you are this adamant against the very existence of ai art lends credence to my belief that the value of a human making art by their own hand will never diminish no matter what you can get a machine to do. Just like with chess AI and how we don't call anyone who makes use of a chess engine to make moves for them a chess master, we won't call anyone who just dumps a bunch of AI generated art on a website an artist. I don't believe artists actually have anything to worry about aside from perhaps having less of an ability to make money commissioning fetish p*rn. We'll always be able to find a way to distinguish between the art a computer makes and the art real people make. It might not always be easy but there are differences at the core of the process that I don't see just improving the algorithm solving at least in the next ten years (I'm prepared to be proven wrong in 6 months). People don't just draw from the ideas of other artists they draw inspiration from their own life experiences. An artist has their own perspective, their own opinions, unique prerogatives and priorities that distinguish their work from other artists. No matter how skilled an AI gets in making images that look like drawings, it will always be the work of a mind with no relatable perspective that can connect with any viewer. More skill than any artist can conceivably attain and yet no opinion on anything it does. Tons of beautiful images filled to the brim with details that have no artistic purpose. It might fool the untrained eye but if you look at AI art there are patters that will take tons of work to diminish. No matter how good it gets there will always be a barrier in its relatability to human experience. Even if a discerning eye can't tell the difference there will likely be ways to detect AI work algorithmically, just like there are algorithms to detect people cheating with chess bots. It'll be a constant arms race but it's guaranteed that the more powerful AI generators get the more powerful the AI detectors will get. This is something I don't believe I'll ever be proven wrong on. I'd also like you to please consider those of us who would use AI not to generate our art for us but as a way to acquire references for the things we'd like to draw, or those of us who want to use the art for other purposes like creating full comic books from stories we wrote. There are many good uses for AI art that I do believe are reasonable and still require a satisfactory degree of human authorship. A full ban on the AI's scanning process reduces the ability of a great many people to communicate with visual art in a way that I don't believe is reasonable. I wish you had gone into more detail about how exactly it fails the standards of fair use. You seem to hinge your perspective on the fear that it will outcompete real artists but I've already given my reasons for why I don't believe that to be the case. A lot of people are depressed at the rise of AI art and claim that it will destroy art but I'm actually more excited to learn to draw if I can find a program that will generate the things I want to draw. I can iterate faster and focus more of my time toward my actual interests without having to go out and find the references. Whenever a new technology comes out there's always a great deal of uncertainty we can't be too hasty to judge whether the new big thing will destroy the world or not.