Raw LLM Responses

I would probably base my argument around expression and accessibility. I disagree about the copy right lawsuits, the same way I don't think you should be sued because your art work contains one, one-millionth of a comic book artists illustration you saw in the school library when you were six years old. YouTube reaction videos utilize more of the original content, and interject less other material that what AI does. Though I am sure you have heard all variants of this argument line before, so I will move on. Since we don't know how far the current neural nets ("AI") can go in terms of achieving complex tasks, it make sense to critique them as they currently stand. Both language and 2D art are still only useful as mock-up tools. Playing around with GPT as a writing tool shows that it has much to be desired, and I will have to re-write much of it, and make several revisions were I going to show someone the work, and if I was going to publish it I would hire and editor to go through it with me. While you will always have people who are happy with the first draft, both novice and hollywood script writer, the hope is that at least in terms of AI as a writing tool it will allow time for further refinement of the text (as some people work better through revision, rather than trying to do it perfect the first time). Applying a similar idea to artwork, I imagine AI being useful for mock-up comic panels and story boarding, to better facilitate a back and forth with a client without spending 10 hours detailing a scene and the customer not really liking it and wanting to go in a different direction. You will have those people who appreciate slop, or just want the visual concept, but I suggest that they were never potential clients really (similar to movie companies gazing at torrent sites, assuming that they would have paid if they couldn't get it for free, though this is false). Instead I think that being confident in giving more detailed descriptions of desired artwork with 'rendered' concepts will allow artists to more confidently accept commissions from 'cheap' 'specific' clients who wouldn't have been able to afford the cost of numerous revisions. Were I to cut-up a news paper and make a collage of the Mona Lisa, and then sold it. Who owns the copy-right? The news paper (some or all), the Museum, Leonardo Da Vinci's children or estate, or myself. Defend your answer. I will say to close though, using Glaze or Nightshade is fine, I don't care/mind I don't think that this current iteration should persist in extended scope, instead just be a tool to assist shading, or improve prose. AI is reaching a degree of saturation where continued development is increasingly expensive for computation, and needs to be reworked, but won't be due to the novel tools it presents. I think AI has made concept sharing and idea transmission easier for the unskilled, while for others sets a bottom-floor from which human artistic talent needs to start to improve. People who draw quick sketches may loose their jobs or transition to prompt writers, meanwhile talented artists may employ a nascent set of generative tools to create more detail, depth, and character to their backgrounds, textiles, hair and fur. I suspect a new way of drawing is coming comparable to how perspective reshaped classical artistry during the renaissance. Like how a minimum wage prevents people without skills from selling their time/labour for less in order to earn. AI presents a minimum standard below which art-work may not necessarily be profitable. In both cases the 'market' responds the same, in the case of art the skill ceiling is higher to turn a profit, though this maybe somewhat bypassed with unique style. Keep up the good work, both drawing and poisoning =)