Raw LLM Responses

@J-Specter-2 I promise you that people were, and some probably still are, upset with photoshop. Most get over it, get with the program out of necessity, or get born into a world where it already exists so they can't imagine it not being a thing. People throw a tantrum with every evolution of things. With computers, people insisted they couldn't or shouldn't take over the jobs of people who filled out forms with pencil and paper. There were photographers who insisted that "real" photography was superior to digital and would insist that it shouldn't be replaced with cold, unfeeling pixels. People lose jobs to automation, they are mad, new jobs are created, people move on. Sunrise, sunset. Every artist today is essentially copying artists that came before. They see the art that came before, study it, are inspired by it, recreate it, and iterate on it. "There is nothing new under the sun." AI isn't ripping people off it is doing exactly what humans have done throughout history by training on art and reproducing it. Did Van Gogh give people permission to study and replicate his art or style? DaVinci? Walt Disney? Manga and Anime artists? No, but people do it all the time and are celebrated for it. People are mad because AI is doing it way better than your average human can and is granting amazing artistic capability to those who lack a talent or years of study and devotion. i.e. they are mad it is creating artistic accessibility. If the AI didn't understand art, then it wouldn't be capable of generating beautiful images in a way that some find problematic because it could only possibly get lucky and accidentally produce a pretty picture. Clearly that is not the case, as people would not be nearly so upset if AI were just smearing pixels around with a one in a million chance of making something nice. Artists are mad because AI is making professional quality art accessible. How will they earn a commission if someone with no talent for art, but who has an image in their head, can just tell an AI what they want and get the image they wanted that way? I promise you, that is 100% the problem and anyone who tries to use an emotional argument about the humanity of it all is just trying to push the right buttons to manipulate people into trying to hold AI back so that their jobs aren't threatened. I included the possibility of someone donating their time to a disabled person for their artistic endeavors. A "loved one," as you have offered up for the position, does not, in fact, inherently make it better. The superior consistency and efficiency are particularly of question, considering an AI can create in mere seconds a picture that would take a professional artist hours or more to produce. That fact aside, for one, you need a loved one. You are already privileged to be in this position. Two, they need the required talent, another privilege. Three, that loved one requires the charitable spirit to give their time up for the disabled person to make their art, another privilege. Four, they have to be in the financial position to be capable of donating their time to that cause, another privilege. One requires that all of these stars of privilege align for your proposed "better solution" to manifest. I am sure I could go on, but I shall not, as it should be abundantly clear that having such a position on what should be expected of a disabled person's lot in life no doubt comes from a privileged person who can't imagine a world in which someone lacks these privileges. With AI, the only privilege one requires is a device with sufficient onboard capability or internet connection, which is far easier to come by or manifest in the developed world than the circumstances you imagine they should have ready access to, sad as that might be. Imagine if Steven Hawking wasn't allowed the use of a computer voice because someone thought he should be bound to require someone, a loved one perhaps, to speak for him. It sounds ridiculous to me, but perhaps you think that would be so much better. In fact, if Mr. Hawking were around today, his computerized voice could have been much enhanced with modern AI capabilities. I expect he would have been thrilled by the possibilities, or maybe he would have grown fond of his old digital voice and chosen to keep it, but he certainly should have had the option to choose, which is not what people who rail against AI want, they want it gone. The example you gave of ONE and Yasuke Murata is a perfect example of how AI could have enabled ONE to produce a professional quality result without needing the good fortune of a professional manga artist to reach out and choose to partner up. How many people do you think have luck like that? So many people would love to create a manga but lack the artistic skill, even if they have the story telling capability. AI can fix that. If someone loves drawing manga but aren't as great at making up stories or don't enjoy that aspect, AI can provide a story for them to draw. So, if Yasuke Murata really prefers drawing to making up stories, he could use an AI to produce the story he draws. I am not saying that either member of that duo would be better off on their own, but their story is so interesting and sensational because it's so very rare. Most writers only get an artist if they have the good fortune to be lifted up from the unwashed masses by a corporate publisher who then graces them with one. Most artists only get a writer if a corporate publisher sees fit to pluck them from obscurity and grace them with one. AI means that practically anyone in the developed world can have a professional quality artist or writer readily at their disposal. It's like going from an artistic aristocracy to an artistic democracy. No more do you need to be born into the privilege of a talent for art or to have a corporate prince charming choose you and make you a princess, you can write or illustrate your imagination with AI and be self-published easier than ever before. The people most concerned with this new state of affairs in which artistic and writing skill are so readily available are the writers and the artists who are afraid of losing their jobs, followed by the people who possess a humanitarian concerned for those writers and artists losing their jobs, followed by the people who have been convinced that there is some mystical "human element" in art produced directly by a human, even though what constitutes "directly by a human" has been getting blurrier and blurrier with every technological advance. The art that AI has been trained on was created by humans in one way or another, and as such, its entire purpose is to reproduce art indistinguishable from that created by humans. Any deviation from this is AI falling short of that goal. Even the person in this video says "when I find out it was created by AI" why? Because it could have been created by a human, and you couldn't tell unless you were told. She is saying that the difference is that the computer chose to put that rock there in that spot, not a person, and this mystical human quality makes the difference for her. If this were not the case, the complaint would be "AI art is so repulsive, I can tell just by looking at it because it is so terrible/has obvious flaws/etc." or perhaps even "AI art is always too perfect to be human." But that wasn't the case. However, I suspect that this is simply a rationalization, whether she knows it or not, because most people know, consciously or subconsciously, that the position that "AI should be banned because AI will steal my job" is very hit or miss, since a great many people want the artistic accessibility provided by AI and find "but my job!" to be a selfish reason to deny everyone else its benefits. But some people care if someone's beauty is "real" or "fake," even if you couldn't tell without being told, so maybe this is genuinely that phenomenon applied to art, rather than the selfishness I see in most who rail against AI. I don't personally believe in the mystical qualities of humans. I don't care if someone made an image or video with AI, if it is good. I don't care if someone built their body or face with steroids or with a plastic surgeon. I don't care if someone is only really pretty when they wear makeup. People who push for "natural" excellence are people who push for privilege. People are privileged to have talents. People are privileged to be pretty or to have the genetics for a muscular physique. Hell, you even have to be genetically blessed for steroids to have their best effect. I am all for a world where the artificial, such as AI, helps balance the playing field and give us all access to do and be the things we wish we could. As for the footballers, I can't fathom how people enjoy watching most sports anyway, so I really don't have an answer for why someone would care if the footage of the game was AI or not. So, let's use a sports movie, tv show, or a sports anime as an example. I can enjoy watching the scripted sporting event in these mediums, even though it's not "real" and the outcome was plotted out by the writer. I can feel the suspense of the near misses, the thrill of successes, the disappointment of defeats, etc. If an AI created a great sports-based show of this sort, and did it well, I wouldn't mind at all.