Raw LLM Responses

@Glaxel Thats not how AI works. Not to be rude, but I think you seriously just do not understand what is actually happening under the hood. I think you should actually go and learn how this stuff works before you just make assertions as if you understand it. Im friends with people who are actual CS majors who have worked with training AI. Its a LOT more complicated than what you're thinking. If all it was doing was simply mashing existing images together, then this wouldve been technology that could have existed a decade ago. Its not doing that. The only reason it exists now is due to advancements in how we develop Neural Networks which makes it easier to train AI to recognize patterns in art, and to properly evaluate its progress. Again, the actual neural network itself has no access to the training data. Its encoding an artistic style into its neural network structurally. Its basically recognizing patterns in art and images and that is encoded through a series of weights in the neural network. It then uses random noise to generate new images using that internal structure. You will get some outputs which look similar to some of the training data, but they will never quite be the same as just a mushing of that original piece into a new piece. The only time youll really see the direct influence for something is under 2 conditions. Either 1, that structure was INCREDIBLY common in the training data, thus the AI learned that "pattern" and repeated it in the output data. This happens with stuff like watermarks where they appear very frequently in the training data so the AI learns to put similar structures in its output as that scores higher for being similar to the training data. And the second reason would be if some prompt has a very low variance of training data, meaning that the only examples the AI has to draw from is that small set of data. Thus it's score will be higher when it more closely resembles those few pieces of data, rather than learning a style or pattern. But the vast majority of what it produces isnt that. That is why completely new, never before seen things can actually be created. This would be simply impossible if the AI was only using existing art and mashing it together. And no, my response is not AI generated. If anything this just shows how poor you are at actually identifying AI generated content. That, or you just say that everyone you disagree with is using AI generated content or whatever as a way to dismiss their points. Either way, thats not what im doing.