Raw LLM Responses

Several issues with your arguments. Im not rage baiting, but pointing this out for deeper consideration. Also, im an artist. First one: Ai is a tool. Photoshop is a tool. Krita is a tool. Clipstudio is a tool. A pencil is a tool. Pixels are a medium, paper is a medium. Your argument boils down to people cant be trusted with tools because they may do bad things or do things of mediocre quality. Because by and large, if ai only did pixel art - you probably wouldnt care as much. Because most artists would be unaffected. Two: humans and AI actually share similar learning behaviors. Machine learning relies on trial and error with a judge saying good or bad. The AI will continue to try and do something it is told to do over many millions of iterations until it succeeds adjusting each iteration based on success rate. Humans call this trial and error. When applied to art, this is learning how to draw. Another methodology to learn is memory. What if instead of having to draw the picture you need to color, you started with the picture already drawn and you could redraw that picture anytime you needed. Thats called a coloring page and it takes the hard part of the activity away from kids. Eventually kids start to draw and based on feed back they get better. Then they color or shade. They do this alit and maybe they make a coloring book for other kids to study and get a head start based on your ideas, your experience. if one of those kids could have 10000 coloring books. They might be able to create one or copy pages from the others by accident or otherwise. Eventually, they decide that they prefer a "style" so they start focusing on how to draw and shade / color in that method. But uh oh, they copied something a bit too close to someone elses character and they get a talking too. Pokemon v palworld and literally every fanfiction out there. This process describes how AI learns too. The difference is AI is a tool. It doesnt decide to do this for itself. It is created for this by an individual who wants to do these things. Third: this hyper dogmatic approach to ai is evil abd bad wont convince people to not use it, because it has uses. Colorizing old photographs, fixing one frame man, making coloring books for a kid when money is tight, inspiration for a piece you want to draw but have trouble imagining. Ai is useful, thats why its here. The real issue is that a handful of companies made backdoor deals with other companies to get access to materials that fell into usage agreements from websites that were hosting the materials. Effectively cutting the original artists out of the deal. Artists got f'd. They got f'd because they trusted companies who screwed them or customers who used their art for a purpose other than what the artist agreed too. Thats the rub though isnt it? Should you, the artist, have that much controll over what other people use their property for? Be it a hosting platform or a private collection? Should you be able to tell me to not drive a car because you dont like that I take it off roading? This is the problem. Ai didnt destroy the art industry. But it raised the bar exponentially. Now you have to be amazing to get commissions. Otherwise, if free AI slop compares - most people will go with free.