Raw LLM Responses

@asecondago9856, "I don't get to be an artist if I don't put in the time to learn the craft." The craft of the artist isn't a fixed thing. The jobs people do, the crafts, arts, and creative activities -- these evolve as culture and technology evolve. The goal of technological innovation is to bring us better tools to expand human capability, and in this case to make the creative process more efficient. From paint, to pixels, to text prompts. In the future perhaps we'll be able to simply look at a screen, imagine what we want to be on it, and have the image appear there in front of us, then shape it or change it just as easily. Sure, art basics are likely to remain the same over time, and will be part of any good art education for a long time to come, but the tools and processes that artists use are going to evolve, and this is for the best. The development of better tools is in everyone's interest. I am an artist myself, and have been paid for my art before, and I've paid others for original works of art, but I've never tried to make a living as an artist, as the business and self-promotion aspects of it don't come naturally to me. In any case, I sympathize with artists who feel the training of the AI on images scraped from the internet is exploiting their hard work, and I understand the concerns and uncertainty about the future ofcommercial art. But I am committed to seeing technology move forward to create an abundant world for all, a world in which technology is leveraged to maximize creative output. Jobs, like being an artist, are not and never have been fixed things. There's no set way the world is supposed to look as far as what jobs are available and what those jobs entail. The overriding will of human civilization is to evolve through the development of new technologies and widespread adoption of those technologies that people deem most useful. As for training the AI on sets that include copyrighted images, that's sort of a short-cut, saving time curating the training set as well as providng the AI with more data to learn from including some of the best art available. I mean, until we can hook the AI into robots and have them go out and study the world itself, it may be necessary to leverage whatever shortcuts are available in order to expedite its training. That said, anyone who wants to challenge things legally should have at it, so we can work out what constitutes "fair use" where the training of AI is concerned. I figure it's kind of like someone who looks at a bunch of Frank Frazetta paintings and then tries to paint in the style of Frazetta. As long as the art produced by the AI isn't an exact or nearly exact copy of an existing work I don't think it matters whether the training set contained copyrighted images. The law will figure things out in due time, however, regardless of what opinions anyone currently holds.