Raw LLM Responses

This video is meant to be serious, but at parts (not the whole thing) it's intellectually disingenuous. For example: luddite is not just someone who's afraid or against technology. It refers specifically to people who oppose technology that can make their job obsolete. It's a reference to Ned Ludd, a factory worker who headed a movement against the machines that took his place. So your arguments against "ludditism" are disingenuous because you interpret them as "you being against any kind of technology", when in reality it's you, as an artist, that's being against a specific type of technology that may take your job. Not advocating for either here, just pointing it out. Another one: when you say that AI images can't be used as reference, you cherry pick one image of a rabbit and one of a lion to point out why they're bad references. But they don't represent every single use case, or every single possibility. Take those same images as an example. When you look at them from afar, you clearly see that they represent a Victorian rabbit and a lion drinking water. So, why do they represent the things they're meant to from afar, but not from up close? The answer is that there's cleary some characteristic in them that makes them fill their pirpose, be it the shadowing, the style, the level of detail or whatever (clearly it's not the rabbit's buttons or the lion's paw, as you showed, but there is SOMETHING). And therefore, we can learn from them, which MAKES them interesting as references. This video almost gets there, but doesn't quite make it. When you criticize AI for copying Myazaki's artstyle for example, guess what? Art styles are not copyrighted, therefore there's legally nothing wrong in copying someone else's style. So that is a completely moot point, even if it's ethically questionable. My advice as someone who studies this is: your best arguments will be the economic ones (as in the end of the video, where you say these companies are being held up by investors because they're not profitable), and judicial ones, as in the ones pertaining to copyright and piracy, for example (which I didn't see explored in depth in this video). This technology is here to stay, whether artists like it or not. Part of the public will adopt it no matter what. When people say "it's good for disabled people", that's an euphemism (or a mask) for the fact that AI is good for lazy people who don't want to learn how to draw, or for people that are good with text prompts, but not with motor skills. But the thing is: those two things are part of the human experience, and people should not be ashamed to admit that they're lazy or that they don't want (or can't for whatever reason) learn how to illustrate. So yes, lazy people use AI now and they will in the future, and they will pay for it, that's just the new reality. Now here's an argument I didn't see you takle: what if an AI company made formal contracts with every artist it uses as training material, so that the artists ger financially compensated for their art? Would that be fair? Say that every time a user (a paying user, for that matter), prompted a new image, and that new image used one of your art pieces as reference, you got credited AND you received a percentage of that user's payment, would that be fair then? If you want to make an intellectually honest video, you need to tackle these things. These kinds of possible scenarios. The issue of "who's the legal author of a prompted image". You need to delve into the (MANY) currently ongoing litigations against AI companies, and expose each side's arguments. Otherwise the video reads as merely an artist who's upset that she's now got some competition. And I know you're way better than that. Wish you ALL the best genuinely, but please make a better researched video next time, if you're going to takle this issue.