Raw LLM Responses

I have a master in computer engineering and a minor in AI. My thesis was about neural networks and I've been designing computer vision neural networks in my work. I like your argument, but you forget some things. Firstly, you say that AI can copy someones work perfectly, and this is why it should be a copyright infringement. Yes, it can perfectly copy someones work, but this is almost all of the time considered "overfitting" which means it is a bad performing AI. It's usually a byproduct of lack of the amount of data fed into it during training, meaning more data can actually make the AI less prone to copy someones work. In other words, reducing the access to artists work, will make it more prone to copy, not less (*Given an equation - that there is more data than neurons and equal distribution among artists). Of course banning all copy-righted work from the dataset, you will avoid any copy-right infringements, but I believe the world shouldn't ban AI's with models trained on copy-righed material, but we shoukd rather ban just "poor" AIs. On the other side, the same counter-argument about overfitting can't be made for copying someones "style", since many software companies actually desires such features. In that context, its not a "lack" of data thats the problem, but rather the conscious decision to copy someones styles. However, this is a grey area as it's very difficult to claim a "style". An argument can be made, that coping someones style is simply an "inspiration". Why should AI be treated different from humans when it comes to taking inspiration? However, your argument still holds in this context. Yes, AI can indeed copy someone "style" perfectly. It's the perfect counterfit machine. If this is a problem for legislation makers, we can still have unique art generating AI's without the ability to copy someones style. In other words, even if style copy was taken away, artists would still be in competition. The question remains if "style copy" is 100% considered a bad thing. Yes, art will be less exclusive. Artist will feel like there is more competition. Sometimes it's even competition "against yourself". Its definitly worth having a discussion about! That said, as long as we can document the artists original work, there will always be interest in "human" art. I believe generated art will only conquer a part of the marked, so there will still be a need of an artist, just in less proportions. Banning AI art in order to save an artist work, is the same argument used in the industrial revolution, as fabric workers was afraid to lose their jobs. Also, I believe the fear of being in "compeition against yourself" is a problem only if artists cling on to the marked consisting of "cheap" customers - the customers only interested in the pixels, not the "soul". I believe art lovers will always love human art, because its human. Yes, there will be less jobs going around, but thats how the world progress Im afraid. Soon all regular jobs will be taken. Artist is no exception. However, in that line of reasoning of humans loving "human" art, it should be made manditory by legislation to sign all AI generated art with watermarks, so consumers can know what has "soul" and not.