Raw LLM Responses

This makes me so sad to know that the world has come to this. I'm not too familiar in this topic myself, but wouldn't it be too much for someone who uses an AI generator to call themselves an artist? It'd basically be the same as requesting a commission and claiming you made it. Don't you also have to pay for a lot of AI services? Since the definition of an artist is 'A person who creates art (such as painting, sculpture, music, or writing) using conscious skill and creative imagination' the AI cannot be the artist because it is not a person, and cannot use conscious skill. The person who uses AI services also cannot be the artist because they most likely don't have any skill to use consciously in the first place, though some might argue that writing the input text would be considered a conscious use of skill and inputting creative imagination, perhaps the situation will cool down a bit if AI users called themselves a more compact term such as writers instead of artists. Finally on the case of using art for a dataset without the permission of the copy write owner, I believe that if an absurd amount of artists contact the AI companies with requests for compensation with reference to art found using their data a middle ground can be established, though I believe that middle ground would be more of a 'if you don't opt out you opt in' situation, it's probably better than nothing, and if the AI cannot forget old data steps can be taken to prevent them from referencing any of your newer artworks. What do you think of my solution? p.s. Artists can also force the company to reset the AI so it loses all existing data via requesting compensation every time your art is used as a reference. So they'll be expending more money and might have to charge more to the use of their services. If they don't compensate you can begin filling lawsuits in mass numbers.