Raw LLM Responses

*I disagree with some parts of Charlie's take here for a couple of reasons*: *1.) I don't think the amount of perceived work it takes validates or invalidates whether or not something is considered art, or better yet GOOD art.* - For example, if a musical artist creates a song using a generic downloadable drum loop, a pre-set chord progression, and outsourced vocals (vocals that aren't theirs) and finishes a song in like 10 minutes, it could be just as good to somebody than an artists that plays multiple instruments, lots of collaborators, and spent months working on it. - There are many examples of hit songs that are beloved by lots and parts were made in less than 2 hours. Songs like Umbrella - Rihanna & Just Dance - Lady Gaga were allegedly written in less than 2 hours. *2.) So just because the tool you use makes an end product quicker & easier means you can't call it "real" art?* Here is a quick analogy, - I am not a mathematician, but If I have a problem I want to solve, a calculator lets me solve equations faster than it would for me to write them out and do it by hand. Does my result have more or less validity than the person who did the equation by hand, even if we got the same answer? Am I more or less skillfull in my problem solving in mathematics than someone who solves the same problem on pen and paper? Could you say I have more or less understanding than the person who uses pen and paper because it may require more "skill or work" than simply typing in the calculator to find the same results? ** I think for the A.I Artist's claim for validity I do think it would help his case to show full transparency about his process in making his art. NOT to show whether or not he "put in the hard work" but rather to explain why it should be copyrighted. But to be honest I'm not sure how that process works for artists in general. So for clarity, I'm making this arguement to counter Charlie's point about the validity of his art rather than if it should be copyrighted. *3.) Artists are often strongly influenced by other artists and frequently "steal" their work and incorporate it into their own works.* - Virgil Abloh, one of the most influential and impactful fashion designers of our time, during his time took a renaissance painting and put them on a T-Shirt and sold it for hundreds of dollars. ^^^ Virgil introduces a concept called the "3% rule" where "A creative only has to add a three per cent tweak to a pre-existing concept in order to generate a cultural contribution deemed innovative ^Couldn't this also apply to A.I art as well? - Dave Grohl, one of the most well-known and influential drummers, self-admittingly says he used to take drum patterns from old disco songs and put them in Nirvana's most popular tracks. - Andy Warhol, one of the most well-known and influential artists, contributed heavily to a whole new wave of art called Pop Art, literally taking the image of a Campbells Soup can & Marilyn Monroe, using it for his art. ^In all of these cases all three of these well known artists profited off of these works. AGAIN, not sure if these were all copyrighted but these were still considered, validated, and appreciated as art. *Overall, I understand the criticisms of A.I being used by mass corporations and the ethics behind that are definitely important to remain aware of and challenge. But as for individual artists who use A.I in their works I don't think its fair to them whether or not you can say its "valid art". I understand that this video is all just Charlie's personal opinion, but for any artists who may have watched this its important to remember and remind yourself that the validity of your art is something to determine for yourself, and I hope this video doesn't discourage anyone from trying to experiment with new ways of creating art.*