Raw LLM Responses

Not sure if the issue is the practice of companies that use the AI to get money, or if it is the issue of the AI not being human and therefore lacks the creative process. I agree that artists should have an option to opt in their work to be used by AIs instead of just used but what confuses me is the distinction from a human using a reference and an AI simply because one collects data and the other I guess has feelings or something. I don't know, I just remember years ago when people would take a drawing or something a person made on DeviantArt and would just repaint it new colors and there was this whole thing whether the person was copying them or not, not to mention the whole stigmatization of tracing which when young and starting out tracing is what one did from those how to draw books. Over time a person got better and sure found their style but it was something developed. An issue with AI or feature is simply it goes through hundreds of thousands of work so what takes a human years to do an AI does in minutes if not seconds. However the fastest and easiest way to copy an image is simply to just copy it which already has been done and AI aren't copying the work exactly. Ok but they are copying an artist's style, right? That's one way to look at it, but style isn't owned by anyone it's developed over time, time just works differently for AIs. But the artist is able to draw from inspiration for their work, yes but when I see their work unless they expressively comment, "I drew this picture a few days after my grandfather passed away" then I don't know the deeper meaning, I just see a really interesting picture of a duck with a cigar in it's mouth. Alright so art already has dealt with it's own history of what is copying or not, AI works on different time than humans, each emotion is our own and shouldn't get at the soullessness of AI so where does the issue come? Right then, so pretend some channel on YouTube makes art, that's easy literally think of favorite artist channel at all my brain literally is drawing a blank on one to say so for me I will say "Puppysquirrel" everyone else just replaced with content creator. One day after watching lots of Puppysquirrel videos go to their DeviantArt page because turns out they can make commissions and you want a drawing of yourself and a significant other for a present, now maybe commissions are high and you are cheap, maybe you don't have much time to get the gift prepared and ready, maybe you never heard of Puppysquirrel until you're S.O. showed videos and you saw their interest and had to fane interest yourself. Whatever case is you found an AI and placed Puppysquirrel into the algorithm so it would look through the hundreds of works they made over the 4 years they have been on, add a photo of you with S.O. and you get a picture that looks like it was made by Puppysquirrel but it wasn't and you know it wasn't but chances are your S.O. and anyone they proudly show off the gift to won't know it's not Puppysquirrel and it's not so much Puppysquirrel is upset that you didn't pay them money, it's that here is a thing not theirs that looks like theirs, they don't own it because they never created it but it could still be mistaken as their creation. But it could get worse, suppose the switch was flipped and a person was able to enter all sorts of debauchery and graphic input into the AI: s****de, r***, ly*****g, C.P., mu*******n, and any combination of these things among others was tagged along with Puppysquirrel, so question is if S.O. couldn't tell that the picture made isn't by Puppysquirrel then could say a family friendly platform that bans those things from it's site or an investigator at the FBI? The company with the AI might get money from a subscription to use their software, but because the art was made by an AI they don't own in and can't and neither can the person who got the art done. It's immediately in the public domain so one way to look at wanting to have an original work of art no one can steal is pay an artist to make it for you so maybe you could have rights wearing your D&D character on a T-shirt. Also if someone cares about Puppysquirrel they would want to support them so THEY can continue making their art, not just the art itself or the works of arts, basically it's do you just like the art or do you care about the artist and if it's results you care for only then my bet is you work in management or something for an Olive Garden, not really a jab or zinger at anything more just that is who I would imagine encapsulates this idea that a person is only as valuable as the results they produce yet likewise a human element is needed to attract customers to business and yet means of living aren't provided but I guess said person should've gotten a job somewhere else because they are too lazy. TL;DR: artist good, AI just a tool, companies exploiting are bags of shit. Other comments can fill in on the details given this one was too boring to engage or inform anyone if they skipped to reading down here.