Raw LLM Responses

@Aubreykun You have no clue what you're talking about. " And AI programs have TONS of settings beyond simple text prompts." SOME do. Most have one or two additional settings, like choosing how much water is coming out of the Keurig, or which flavor of pod to use, or whether you filled the reservoir with tap water or filtered. "Most AI art that is getting people mad, is just bad art because the artist isn't controlling for many of the variables." - Which is the vast majority of it, which makes the previous statement invalid. And it isn't the obviously bad art that is making people mad - it's the passable art, often comprised of elements stolen from uncredited artists, and passed off as actual art by people who did little more than use a search bar. It's barely more work than hunting around for a stock photo and then claiming it's your work because you paid for the license. In any case, the reason some art is better than others is because some people have been using more advanced and up-to-date generators which have more expansive training sets, and more complex algorithms. Midjourney can easily pop out a usable image using only a word prompt: it will give you maybe 4 options to choose from, and you just keep clicking the one closest to what you want until you're done. That is not "settings". Clicking the "upscale" button is not work. Clicking the retry button is not work. It's literally no different than searching through stock images, except none of these credit the artists whose work went into the training sets. "It's the equivalent of leaving all the settings on the espresso machine at default, putting normal chock full o nuts coffee grounds in and running it" - Nobody who owns an espresso machine is that stupid. However you did get one thing correct: you cannot make YOUR own art using AI, just like you CAN'T make espresso with Chock Full-o-Nuts. AI art is already affecting the jobs of concept artists. Stop pretending to have your own opinions about topics you know nothing about. In all your comments here, you do nothing but ignore genuine, valid concerns and pretend that AI art is only being used in specific use-cases under specific methods which you think disqualifies all concerns, but all you're doing is repeatedly professing how dedicated you are to disingenuously presenting your pro-AI position like some kind of zealous, paid shill. Professional artists are concerned - and they should be. They know a lot more about their field than you do. Oh you draw high-school skill-level furry porn for people? Good for you, you're not the kind of artist impacted... yet. Of course someone drawing low-grade furry NSFW has nothing to lose because of AI - you'll improve your "work" quality immensely without lifting a finger, with work generated based of models produced from actual artists with far superior skills. The claims of AI-users and amateur artists about how their new toy "won't impact" someone else's actual job is entirely invalid in this discussion. Just READ some of the comments of people agreeing with you: claiming that actual artists charge too much money for their TIME and effort (huh, almost like it's a real job...) and pretending that using people's work without consent is some kind of right. You people are exactly why the AI art is getting such a bad reception, because almost none of you have any concept of artistic ethics, any concept of how the art industry is actually impacted (regardless of how much you know specifically about the AI systems and models themselves), you sound like you have a vendetta or resentment against paid artists for the sole reason that they dare ask for compensation for THEIR actual time and work, AND almost none of you sound like you have any intention of using it to generate reference or ideas but rather to simply rip it off and claim it as your own art work (even though the AI is the artist).