Raw LLM Responses

I'm an artist who thinks this "No to A.I." movement is largely emotionally-based panic. But I do greatly appreciate your rational view given here and agree with most of it. The only caveat I find here is that, at least here in the Western Hemisphere, I see no way one can enforce laws against A.I. technology merely analyzing existing copyrighted works without it also affecting human artists from doing the same. The same space human artists have to merely observe, study, and emulate another's artwork (without directly plagiarizing them), is the same space that creators of A.I. (Machine Learning) models are using (or exploiting, depending how you view it). The giant "loophole" with A.I., if you will. It's technically just capitalizing upon what's legal for humans because you can't copyright a style, nor can you stop someone from analyzing a publicly-displayed copyrighted work and creating a different new result from such analysis. I think the only way around this issue is that those companies building A.I. models are just going to have to make the decision to "opt-out" of using established copyright works on their own, to appeal to the people, rather than being enforced by policy. Or, as you say, to "get to a point where the process used by AI will be unique and original" somewhat on its own. Though, even with such a "point," A.I. image production will still always rely upon emulation of provided data. Humans will always serve as a machine's source of data, in some way. The only question, really, is who's willing to serve as the data? I think an "opt-in' option as the default will help alleviate most of this matter. It's really the only true option I see as quelling concerns.