Raw LLM Responses

@group555_ To put if briefly, the exploitation of artists is what we are standing up against. My quarrels aren't only with the technology "because it's lazy." I'm sorry if I came off harsh in my previous statements, this is my personal perspective on the matter. - Ai models released years ago able to loosely generate and modify images. That's interesting, pretty fun to mess around with at times. -The ai cannot reliably generate images people actually like, the solution being to give it access to Google. Kind of unsettling, but technically not illegal or anything. -one ai model even had a musical counterpart trained on non-copyrighr music. Proof creators could've paid for access to a stock library, or something royalty free, and deliberately did not. -many artists feel upset about this, and would like to at least be compensated for their work or to opt out of having their work potentially used. -companies refuse. It's apparently too hard to even reliably credit artists whose work *may* have been referenced by the model. Some models don't store reference images, they effectively only search and view. -people genuinely believe artists are taking it too personal, despite the fact art is a very personal commitment to time and energy. So not only are artists being taken advantage of and not paid a penny for their contributions to the advancement of this technology, they're being told to suck it up and deal with it. People who believe they are genuinely entitled to any piece of an artists work are the problem here. It's an "I'll do whatever I want now and you can't do anything about it" mentality. Artists have been treated like trash for years, and they're about to be treated worse. They're obviously gonna be upset with that bully mentality, as childish as that sounds.