Raw LLM Responses

@laurentiuvladutmanea "Not by any sane definition. It only scans for patterns, and then generates thing that fit those patterns, with no actual ability to understand the underlining rules, or how to intentionally deviate from the patterns known." yeah that's just another way of saying it learns from it as its taking in knowledge and replicating that to make another thing. "No. It is a replacement, whose only use as a tool is by making your art more generic, and taking away its personality." by your response you clearly have no idea how to use this AI to improve your own art. here's a basic run down on how to do that: 1: Get AI to make an image in the style you want to have. 2: Study said image to then understand how to replicate the style onto any painting you want to make. that's it, its not that difficult to understand. and people aren't going to be replaced, there will always be a market for human artists. most likely businesses will go more to AI as it means they don't have to spend more money and time to get images. but everyone else will pay an artist to get art from them as they are wanting hand made art from that specific person; its not about the art but who is making the art. "Most artists opposing this technology debunks your idea." the majority of what artists are saying are that they are not wanting to make art because "what's the point if AI can do it better than me" which is what? insecurity; thinking you're not good enough because AI can do what you do faster. when people put in effort and meaning into their art, AI doesn't; just because something or someone does something better than you, doesn't mean you're removed from the situation. "You are an elitist, goof for nothing, prick. You actually believe people don't try to put meaning behind their work?" what you've written here is what i call "a load of nothing", its what happens when you have nothing factual to say so you try and hurt someone to make yourself feel better... it didn't work. no I'm not an elitist, I believe that everyone should be equal and have the ability to do what everyone else can do. but I get a sense that you are an elitist, or at least believe you are better than the majority of people; your response to me is what gives it away. i do believe the majority of people put meaning into their work, but i know there are people in the world who just make art for the sake of money and not for creative sakes. and if you're response is "well the meaning is to make money" that's not how that works; were talking about the meaning of the art. we need story to be told to have a meaning, and if its just a picture of a character standing still with no story then there's no meaning behind that art piece. "The fact that a study on these has proven that 1.8% of the images generated by one of these models were copies of images from the data set used to train them debunks your claim." that's only 1.8%? give it a few months or less, they'll fix that and make it either 0 or extremely low to like 0.5 because if i get an AI to constantly paint thousands of paintings, eventually it will make a somewhat copy of something a human made, because that's what happens when so many things are made; it ends up making something that's already been done before. like how in the world there are people who look exactly like you, or so close that you cant tell the difference.