Raw LLM Responses

Sorry Sam, while you are 100% correct when you say that an algorithm can reproduce an identical copy if it has been trained on your work - that would be if the only picture it has been trained on is that single picture. What happens is an ai sets up a pseudo-neural network - designed to partially replicate how the mammalian brain works. When you show it a picture and tell it the tags that refer to that picture, what you “physically” do is rearrange the neural network. Exactly the same way that mammalian brains work. When you look at an artists work, your neural network makes new connections between the neurons and breaks others - that new arrangement of your neural network is how you learn things - and that’s what the pseudo neural network of a machine learning algorithm does. That’s why ai artists don’t consider it a breach of your copyright - that’s why they say that you’ve put it online, so it’s tough - because from their point of view, all the ai is doing is replicating human learning, they show the ai a drawing, teach it what that drawing is the correct answer too and let the pseudo neural network make and break connections based on that. None of your work is stored in the neural network, and unless you’ve worked really hard, it can’t replicate any of your art (and why would you go to so much effort? Copy and paste exist, if you want to reproduce exact artworks, you can, easily.) what it can do is reproduce your style, which is not copyrightable nor should it be otherwise the estates of long dead artists really are going to come after you. For example, one of the biggest jokes in ai is that the sam does art model made after the user was harassed by your fans is not trained on one single piece of your art, it was trained on your named inspirations - and as if to prove the point that all it’s done is learn exactly like your brain has by looking at those same artworks, it’s roughly matched your style (ish). The Afghan girl picture, I know why you didn’t show it full screen, or for very long. Andy Warhol transformed plenty of photos less than the ai transformed the Afghan girl picture and won in court against the photographers. Art drew the lines before you were born, as to what is acceptable and what is not. You have flourished in that environment- asking to change the boundaries now reeks of gate keeping, you flourished in a less restrictive environment but you don’t want to allow the next generation of artists, ai or not, the same freedoms you enjoyed. You want to mark those images generated of the Afghan girl as not transformative enough, even though they are - and that would send shockwaves through the art world - similar pose, eye colour and clothing style, but not identical - that’s copyright infringement… god, can you imagine. Andy Warhol fought the system so he could posterise a photograph of Marilyn Monroe and be on the correct side of copyright. That’s why Studio Ghibli can’t be sued out of existence by Disney, as well as every other artist ever inspired by Disney. It hurts to see an artist try to undo all that because they don’t like a new art tool. Particularly one giving a voice to disabled artists who have never had a voice before.