Raw LLM Responses

I'm an AI artist--don't hate me. I have some simple questions based on your video. Do you title your individual art pieces with a unique title? I ask because famous works, (including the photo you showed that has become known widely as "girl with the green eyes" and sometimes with "National Geographic" included, but not always) often have a title they become known by. There was a contest I participated in some months back where we had to replicate a famous painting without our own spin on it. I chose the most famous of all: the Mona Lisa. It was hard to make my version at first because there are so many millions of it on the internet. I don't know how curated the LAION5B dataset is, but I presume that all the copies of the painting are the same, except for recreations made by some other artists in animated productions or something similar. Anyhow, every time I tried to recreate the picture done in the style I wanted, it came back looking a lot like the original. Yet not a single one looked exactly like the original. I couldn't make my version until I got very clever with my prompt (the text used to generate it.). First, I decided to try and describe the pose in minute detail, along with the name of the style I wanted to use, but I couldn't get one that looked like the famous painting enough to enter the contest. The only thing that worked to get my variation and have it look enough alike was to prompt for "a woman poses like Mona Lisa" and then words to describe the style I wanted. If your art has a title for every piece you do (which is quite common), then someone might be able to recreate it like "girl with the green eyes" by "National Geographic" because the AI was trained on the image and text with it. If the AI artist (aka prompt engineer) knows the name of your painting and your name, and the image is well known to the AI, then very similar images could theoretically be generated like my experience with the Mona Lisa. However, like the versions made by your admirers using your picture as a reference, there will still be differences you could see because the AI is definitely not perfect at all. I'll talk about the music example in a moment, but there is one other thing I wanted to say about purposeful replication. People like myself can try very hard to recreate a painting or digital art by describing it at length, and will fail except in the case of very simple pieces. Sorry Banksy--it's possible to make some art somewhat like the girl with the red balloon, although I don't know that it was certainly close enough to make a copyright argument because I'm not a lawyer. Your art isn't simple. I haven't tried a model trained solely on your work, nor used your name in any of my prompts. (I don't like to use artist names for the reason that I want to make something more original, but when I do use names, I put several together. That way, the resulting style doesn't look like any of the referenced artist's work rather than something inspired by a blend of all the styles. This multiple-names method is shared by all the AI artists I know on some level, though no doubt many use just one name.) I don't know if it's easy, exceptionally difficult, or impossible to recreate one of your pieces with AI. What I do know is that you don't own your style in the way you own your art. Your style is not copyrightable, so it is not possible to violate your copyright with AI art unless someone can make a piece similar enough to an existing piece of yours that a fair argument can be made. I disagree with your points about mimicking a style causing reputation damage to an artist who might (or might not) have been the origin of the style. There's nothing to stop a talented artist from painting like you. If they say they are you, of course there's a legal argument against that, but otherwise, they can paint like you all day long and there's nothing you can do but be upset. I noted that you're not upset by humans making art that looks similar to your specific piece, but are upset about people being able to create AI art in your style, and you made the argument that it's because of the time, effort and passion that went into or didn't go into making the stylistically similar piece. Yes, I understand why you and other artists might feel upset and even scared about AI art. But that's a different discussion. I'm a writer and there are AI tools that can write entire novels. I'll give it the benefit of the doubt and say AI can write better than I can. It doesn't matter that I spent my life learning how to write, that it took me more than a year to write my first novel, or even all the emotion, life experience, and passion that went into it. Am I upset about it? No. What will I do? Keep writing my books. Perhaps no one will ever buy my books because there are so many AI books to choose from they might not know mine exist. But I write because it's my passion, not because people might buy my book. I'm sure you will also continue to make art even if you can't sell it any more. It's a fact that AI will replace everyone's jobs in not that much time. It's scary for some people for sure, but technology has been replacing people's jobs through the entire history of civilization. It's up to us without work to find our purpose in a world that doesn't technically need us, and that's when passion will mean more than ever before! I surely hope that none of this drama, nor any of those trollish comments you get, will ever diminish your passion. So, about the music AI by Harmon AI. You, and several other artists, quote that brief paragraph from the website as if the simple language relates directly to AI art as well. What you don't understand is the statement is brief and written in easy to digest language because the whole explanation is long and not easily understood. One thing they clearly want to do is inform people that they're using music that isn't protected by copyright because of the controversy artists have made about AI art. They don't want people to need to know a lot of things about music to understand their reasons. Music is a mathematical process and deals with patterns. A musical composition, or part of it, can be thought of as a type of equation. As a learning machine, the AI cannot help but learn that equation. Later on, when it is trying to make pleasant sounding equations of its own, it is likely to remember an equation that it learned and incorporate some of it in the piece it's creating. Art and even writing are not equations like music is. Writing is also easier to replicate than art is because it deals with patterns and rules. Art has some of those characteristics, but often what makes a visual creation truly artistic is that it breaks the "rules" of the world like the colour of the sky, the shape of a face, etc etc. I'm really sorry that it's hard on you right now and that people are trolling you. I didn't address your incorrect assertions about how AI art is made because I already wrote a lot. I hope it can give you food for thought, and at least show that not all the people making AI art would want to troll you or say uncaring things. You make good art and I doubt even the AI can do it like you do. Keep up your good work and your passion, and don't let people or AI get you down. Happy New Year to you and yours as well!