Raw LLM Responses

​​​​​​​​​@canimanamino2433There's a difference between protesting and cancel culture. Only one of the two explicitly harms individuals. Disliking AI art in principle is a right, harassing AI artists is not. Not saying every "protestor" engages in harassment, but it's far from uncommon. Besides, if the "protest" is to suppress an industry (AI art) which is a livelihood for some people, then there should be a rational reason to do so beyond simple competition. "I don't want this industry to be a thing because technological revolution would ruin my livelihood " isn't something that has historically worked because it would dull growth and prioritizes personal income at the cost of other peoples' income. Imagine if we never implemented the assembly belt because factory workers got their will. Plus Art is subjective right? I just see colors and shapes in some medium, so for me there's really no difference. If art is really subjective, it should also be accepting of AI art, because the piece itself doesn't matter as much as what you make of it, no? And if it really is a "passion industry," where the passion is intrinsic to the art rather than the interpretation, then AI art will fail without any interference. What I DO think is a valid position is opposing AI art (again, not individual harassment) on the basis that the training itself is unlicensed use of existing art, but only in some cases. If fanart of a game is valid art, then AI art of a game, trained only on games, maybe with stylistic learning (e.g. sketches) from unlicensed art, is also valid art. It's incoherent to argue that humans are permitted to learn from art styles, but AI is not. Due to the risk of nearly 1:1 reproductions of existing art, at the very least, it should be allowed to exist if it trains on unlicensed pieces.