Raw LLM Responses

_"Her argument is basically that she's not as fast at processing visual data, and doesn't have the same sort of memory capabilities, as an AI image generator. Therefore the image generator has an "unfair advantage." BS. It's just a different kind of mind."_ Good, at least you've established here that at the very least, it's not the _same_ kind of mind, which is better than most of the other pro-ai muppets do. _"A different technology or way of doing the same sort of thing that the human mind does -- the externalization of mental functions to a system that's more efficient in particular ways."_ Except the crux of the issue isn't the 'mental functions' but the handling and use of copyrighted works. _"Human visual artists develop their individual style on the basis of everything they've taken in through their eyes over the course of their lives. That includes looking at sunsets, architecture, and of course, all the paintings and art they've ever looked at, most of which was copyrighted"_ There is no such thing as referenceright. Which is why all of this is fine. _"It seems only fair to let image generators do the same, and since they don't have robot bodies with eyes, they have to be fed images from the internet."_ Why on earth would that be 'fair'? What idiotic nonsense is that? It's not an artist's or anyone else's 'problem' that generative AI existentially doesn't have eyes, ears, or bodies to do so, and as such -has- to rely on using works directly, which falls under copyright laws, in order to produce its outpuets. That's no more 'unfair' that a human mind doesn't compute as fast as a machine. That's just what is. _"As long as they aren't exactly reproducing specific works, there's no copyright violation in this process,"_ Except they've shown that they HAVE done so. The fact that this is even possibles shows that the AI ML generator fundamentally requires using data inputs, many of which are copyright protected, and thus relies on copyright infringement. _"unless we want to grant human visual artists special fair use rights that image generators don't have, and hold back the advancement of artistic tools in the process. To do that would be the response of a Luddite."_ What on earth are you even on about? _"Perhaps any artist who wishes to deny the image generators access to training data has a responsibility to fund the development of robot bodies and eyes for them, so that they can learn in the same way that human artists do."_ Why the fuck does anyone have to do that? This is an utterly imaginary obligation on your end.