Raw LLM Responses

I love when ppl like you just randomly accuse ai of stealing. I mean, obviously you have your lives and careers on the line, so you have to fight back. That said, ai isn't stealing art. This isn't even a matter of discussion, but a purely technical one. A neural network based image generator works so (relatively) well because it mimicks what a human brain does. Take 2 situations: 1. a guy (artist) has never seen a horse before and has no knowledge of it whatsoever. Then suddenly, a traveller shows him a couple of drawings of a horse. Later, the artist draws a horse using the knowledge of what a horse is from the drawings. Is he stealing? You think he is. Why? Here's the second situation: 2. an ai has never seen a horse before and has no knowledge of it whatsoever. Then suddenly, a website shows it a couple of images of a horse. Later, the ai draws a horse using the knowledge of what a horse is from the drawings. Is it stealing? You think it is. Of course, you will disagree with me saying you think the artist is stealing in situation 1. If he was stealing, anybody who saw a drawing of a horse and then decided to draw one himself is stealing form the original drawing's artist. After all, they obviously ended up copying major parts of it! Due to nn's process of acquiring information about things being practically identical to humans - that is, acquiring an "understanding" of a horse in order to be able to recall it later - either both of them are stealing, or none of them are, as they are doing the same thing - and the scale, speed, the material of the processing unit et cetera being obviously not revelant here, as it is not revelant to judging whether anthing is stealing or not. Of course, an ai still can be used as a tool for stealing. Thing is the only diffrence between an image generator and a human brain that is revelant here is while ai is standalone, a human brain isn't. So an artist can diffrentiate between a horse (concept of which can't be stolen) and mickey mouse (whose concept can be stolen no problem). An ai image generator can't do that - not because it hasn't learned to do so (I mean sure it could be trained on "horses" only, but that's simply limiting the knowledge it gets, not teaching to differentiate between the 2) but because that part simply isn't in it. You just can't teach a pig how to fly - if it could fly, it wouldn't be a pig, or in our case, an (standalone) ai image generator. As a result, when a person asks an ai to draw a horse, they get a horse, and when they ask for Mickey M, they are illegally creating an unauthorized derivative work. But the key friggin point is that it is them who do so. Of course, all of this doesn't fix your job-losing-and-life-falling-apart thing. But hey, while the phrase "ai can be and is used to steal, but does not steal itself in neither the learning process nor usage" is probably less marketable than the simple and tried "ai steals", hopefully you now know only the former is the correct one. Also removing almost all of nightshade's "poison" form a trained model requires a simple retraining session with nightshade-infected images themselves, making it next to useless. Not to mention it doesn't really work that well to begin with in larger datasets, unfortunately. Also the link in your pinned comment that is supposed to prove there has been a case with a precedent on ai stealing artwork does not prove that, so I have no clue why would you post it in that context. To quote: "The AI companies claimed fair use, and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act claims were ultimately dismissed with prejudice". Not that it wasn't obvious - the amount of cases that would arise from a ruling you suggested would be absurd, and quite loud.