Raw LLM Responses

Serious question, where is the line drawn? AI art is going to happen regardless, so where is the line drawn in terms of what makes theft and what doesn't? How many steps does the AI have to take before it's no longer theft? Here's another question, if AI art is theft, does that also mean people who redraw famous works are also stealing? How about drawing in the styles of others, sculpting in the styles of others. Anyone makes as perfect a replica as possible of any art piece, and they are effectively no different than AI in all this. Its like the lines here are extremely blurred and no one wants to talk about where they are. Just to sum this up, it's the ship being taken apart and put back together. I'm not advocating for AI I'm advocating for understanding the philosophy behind theft, and what actually belongs to anyone. EAP For your benefit and because I've been watching you for years I'm not going to bring up 3D animation past this sentence. I do lol and I knew explaining it to this guy would be exhausting. smh The person I was debating deleted everything so I'm going to do my best to give their points justice. They tried to make a point about 3D animation being comparable to AI generation, the problem with that is that 3D animation is transformative. As pointed out in this video, AI generation fundamentally is not. They made a good point about copyright being a problem but then immediately also said that it was okay to draw Sasuke with AI. As soon as this person realized I wasn't "on their side" they became combative, and basically said everyone who disagrees or doesn't think AI art is art is deranged, while also kind of sounding deranged. Either way the rest of the thread speaks for itself.