Raw LLM Responses

Some A.I's 10 seconds of work can be compared to an artist who trained a few years. Something doesn't feel right here but there's no law currently against using any artist's work to learn and generate images from it so.. yeah, i guess people really found a loophole this time that can even be commercialised, despite the A.I using someone else's years of work to learn to begin with. Without the artists the A.I generators can't even exist to begin with, but sure, continue to give no credit and shit on people who made the A.I possible in the first place The fix to this would simply be to pay/get consent from every artist that the A.I learns from. Since A.I art bot creators are *earning* from this, it's only fair to do so. Just because it's an A.I doesn't mean it can just take other people's stuff to use as a database for free. And it should be illegal to use works from anyone that didn't consent to their stuff being used to make the A.I. Afterall, you are using somebody else's property to make the A.I in order to let yourself make money. If you want to commercialise the A.I art generator, you have to pay everyone involved. And don't even get started on the "we don't share the database" crap, that's literally just plagiarism but you try to hide what you are plagiarising. Laws should be made to make any company who makes A.I art generator to earn money publicise the database they use to be fair. Let me remind you that A.I art generators use other people's work as the database to generate anything to begin with. So it might as well be stealing, but with a loophole since no laws are created to counter this yet.