Raw LLM Responses

@laurentiuvladutmanea The issue with your argument is you argue on a rather small portion of what I had said and still fail to understand why copyrighting art styles is a bad idea. My main argument is about protectionism and why it would only cause more problems than it solves. To start, copyrighting art styles are simply too vague. Us humans may have all these great qualities that separates us from machines, but that doesn't negate the fact that a law can still dictate a human making a work of art is too similar to another human's work of art. Take in example of the photography medium, I can show you artists who have super similar art styles in photography and you wouldn't know the difference if I were to do the test I have stated in my original post. This can happen to all other mediums of art, despite how many variables there are to make each art style look different. Additionally, someone can have a keen interest in a specific art style they have been following for a long time, which they try to replicate and even have their own minor twists to it or they just like it as is. To the untrained eye of the average person, they wouldn't know a difference despite it being completely different composition. Law is like a machine and its dictated by the people who make those laws, which they'll likely have deep pockets. Speaking of deep pockets, large corporations are propped up to never fail because they can easily change the rules of how the market works in their favor. They love protectionist laws because they know it'll ultimately work in their favor to have control over the market. This has happened time and time again throughout history thanks to their understanding of how the government can be used to influence the economy to work in their favor. Often times this is through economically unsound policies to limit competition in the market, which originally kept them in check to provide a better product or service. If they can limit competition in the market, large corporations can do whatever they want to their products and there isn't a thing you can do about it because you're forced to pick from very few options. So much for fighting back against those large corporations with their corporatist economic ideology, huh? These AI programs are just another new medium that will ultimately help the artist create their own artwork. This is like how nowadays we see more digital art than we see with traditional mediums of art, like pencil and paper, to be used in professional applications. Yes pencil and paper does have its uses, but digital is used far more than traditional mediums thanks to how much more efficient digital mediums are. This allows for more jobs to open up, create new markets and studios to compete at a small scale. This is a like how the car replaced the horse, you still see people have jobs related to transportation and more jobs have been created thanks to such advancing technology. This is because the inefficient task of using a horse has been replaced with a more efficient means of transportation, the car. This will happen the same for AI tech in art, assuming you don't put protectionist laws in place to limit competition. Artwork fully made by a human isn't going to disappear because there are markets for traditional mediums to be sold and given to the customer today. But most people don't do that thanks to digital being a lot more efficient in creating artwork, thus allowing for people to get commissions done online and and sold directly to the customer. With the potential use of this AI tech, we can now make our workflows more efficient for the same amount of work and focus on the creativity of the composition. You don't seem to have a creative brain to understand why more efficient means to create art will ultimately benefit us as a whole. To wrap this all up, lets say you add these protectionist laws like we have done plenty of times in history. I predict you will have large corporations who are the only ones who can afford to hire a bunch of artists to make their own personal dataset for them. These artists can recreate other people's art styles, since human recreation is not subject to these laws, which ultimately makes the art style look damn similar enough that the people just accept it as is. Then the few corporations who can afford to develop this AI will eventually sell it as a program for all to use. This advancement in technology will ultimately create new jobs when the technology comes to the average person, but it will still replace the very jobs you were trying to originally protect. Now with AI being part of the standard workflow to create art, you are now forced to pick from a small amount of options for using these AI programs despite those companies having anti-consumer practices. Who are you going to go to when you don't like their program? Are you going to the open source one who doesn't have as good of a dataset like the big corporations do or suck it up and pay big corporation? Good luck with making your own and competing with the larger corporation, it'll be hard to afford a proprietary data set. So much for sticking it to the man!