Raw LLM Responses

@pilev2 There is a big difference. Ai has no effort. You feed it to it and then boom, it can recreate EXACTLY what the artist does. It isnt formed from passion either. Greed is it. Most artists start art for passion, as art isn't a high paying field. But you can charge a lot for AI. That's the main motivator of it honestly, on top of saving companies money at the cost of quality and respect. And how AI images are generated is FAR from art. If AI images are art, then this comment is too. Also, that's not every artist either??? A lot of us learn by looking at real objects. Like, for example, trees. Thats how they learn to draw and form their artstyle (in my case, I did that but simplified it. I don't believe my art style mimicks any artist's style, but thats just my knowledge since I don't know every artist obviously). Thus, that argument isn't exactly valid. I only know maybe 2 artists out of 20 or smth that based their art on preexisting art. And, let me give an analogy for how AI works but with a different job. Say that youre a taxi driver. It's the highest paying job you have the qualifications for and you enjoy it. But then, somebody steals your car. You can no longer do your job. The person who stole the car takes over your job. They do it worse, but much faster. Your employer fires you to hire them instead. Your income is now cut a lot and you're in a job you dislike. You begin to hate the person who stole your car. In this scenario, who is in the wrong? The person for knowingly taking your car and job, the employer for dropping you for the thief, or you for hating the thief? That scenario is what AI has done to some artists, and if we don't change anything and it remains as more than a tool, almost all artists. It makes sense for artists to hate AI when that's the future in the horizon. AI should be nothing more than a tool for artists, to give them ideas. That's the extent of what AI's involvement in the art field should be. But people like you are arguing for it to not just be a tool, but to be a replacement, and putting down artists for not being a fan of that. Also, what's with the "artists"? Someone being an artist doesn't revolve around them being okay with ai or not. It revolves around what they do. Artists are people who genuinely work to create something. It could be drawing for hours on paper, aka traditional art, it could be drawing for hours on a phone, aka digital art, it could be carefully taking photos of an object and editing them for hours, aka photography. All of those are carely considered art, and people who participate are considered artists. AI doesn't fall under that description. AI generators just type a few sentences and the AI combines art together to create something similar to the prompt in a few seconds, but usually making many errors