Raw LLM Responses

Ive been an artist since the 90s, ive also been a technology enthusiast. Im sorry to say, but your arguments fall flat. In classical art studies, you study images and replicate the style to the best of your ability focusing on principles of art in the process. Your comparison of ai scraping to human inspiration is only differentiated in scale and intent. Some artists draw crap intentionally, does that make it less valid? No, look at xkcd comics. Literal stick figures, but its perfect. Other artists draw abstract images intentionally deviating from reality, then realism where we try to imitate realife. These works take time which creates value. Ai cheapens that, in the same way that krita - blender - photoshop - and other tools do. You can run ai image generations for the cost of running your computer, locally with no sub. So yeah, its free and fast. This has the result of anyone who has ever wanted to draw an image but could not is now able to have a computer do most of that work for them. Its so fast that if a bad result is made, just rerun it. Its good enough that even a novice artist can load up mspaint and touch it up and have near professional quality work. 90% of users though just want a passable image though and instead of spending immense amounts of time learning ecosystems of tools and software, a prompt screen makes this easy. Your arguments are based on emotional appeal and not founded in reality. Art means something to the artist, the art communicates that meaning visually, and the viewer inferences their own meaning. There is no intrinsic truth to art. Your home town hills are just hills to most people. Reference art is almost never cited because of the transformative nature that occurs in the process, AI is no different. If it produces images that are inspired by star wars, but do not resemble copyrighted material in any way, then no citation is needed. This is more a user issue than anything. However for the most part this is easy to fibd out. Most AI images have the metadata including prompt used at runtime baked into the image. Long and short, ai is another tool in the box, and its not going away. But, the community at large is not treating like a tool and holding tool users accountable. The rage is against the tool, who frankly isnt alive and doesnt care. The truth is, I largely agree with you. I hate AI. I think its a net negative for society as a whole, not just artists. However, making flawed arguments and emotional appeals will not help. On a side note, your preffered style is not your (possesive) style. A fan can imitate your style, as long as they dont violate copyright law, theres no consequence. That means as long as they dont copy pictures youve already drawn, theres nothing enforcable about that. Emotionally, it hurts to see a thing youve dedicated so much time to exploited. I understand. However, you do not posses the building blocks of a thing, just the complete thing. A stronger argument against AI would be an argument of control. The best ai can do in its stoa is badic layering and regional prompts, with decent but far from perfect 3d capability. At best, in a professional sense, it does a lot of the concepting part of the job well. However, in its current state, is incapable of producing an art piece that is completed. In the future, it may be able to. At this point its capable of brute forcing its own growth. Then just like every other industry, artists will lose jobs. Eventually ai will run a sizable portion of the economy and things go down hill from there. This is the real reason we should stop training AI. Its not just about artists, its everyone. So yay for nightshade, I guess. However I suggest you revisit your principal of argument here. Its flawed. Ps, im sorry if this comes across blunt. Im genuinely afraid of what AI will do for society in the not so distant future. So I want to make sure people make strong logical arguments that are hard to dismantle, rather than emotional based appeals to people who dont care. Thats my soap box.