Raw LLM Responses

I don't believe artists should own their own art, plain and simple. Leonardo Da Vinci lived during a time without IP "rights" and yet he lived an upper middle-class life due to aristocratic commissions. Saying his art didn't have soul because he took commissions is the biggest insult you could make about his works currently on display. Artists can survive without enforcing their intellectual monopolies on others by avoiding the violation of property rights of the people who paid for the content/product in the process. What you described at 7:32 is the US fair use doctrine at it's finest. Generative AI is simply using the fair use doctrine in overdrive which is causing IP holders to panic sue because some AI models are trained on piracy sites for their reference material. IP consent is a myth. No one should have to ask an IP holder or "creator" if they can alter the property they paid for in order to use their property how they see fit. On a side note, I am aware that some AI companies are enforcing their IP "rights" on generated works, keep in mind that I am against that as well. As for the "democratization of art" nonsense going around, pay it no mind because democracy is the god that failed ~ Hoppe. I like to think that when everyone jokes about pirating *Insert Big Company Here* or justifying the circumvention of TPM's that those people would be consistent with their thoughts and not mind the presence of AI but that's probably a moot point by now. Anyways, Take care.