Raw LLM Responses

@MistaCatsby-.-In case you're the type to comment on how long this comment: I like _multi-hour_ long video essays, but not all of them are good. Just because I don't like this specific hour long video essay, that doesn't mean I think long form videos are inherently invalid. So don't try to call me a hypocrite because I wrote a long comment. This is literally the first paragraph, it's trivial to find. The fact you assume I must be an AI user tells me a lot about you. I am learning to draw, and I don't use AI specifically because I wouldn't have enough control over the end product. My channel has links to my DeviantArt, Pixiv, Tumblr, and Image Chest accounts, which have all of my publicly available art (I do not consider Twitter (X) and BlueSky to be art websites, so most of my art is likely missing from those). And I'm honestly quite bad at drawing, so I think anyone the gift of sight can tell I'm not using AI, especially sense there would be no point in using AI to pretend an inferior artist, even if one could find an AI model that was allowed to do that. And in case you're the type who would ask: YouTube has a habit of hiding and/or deleting comments that links to pages offsite, likely to minimize scams, spam, and the like. So no: I cannot put a link in this comment. So here are instructions: go to my page, then either click the blue link next to my profile picture (it's the one to my DeviantArt profile) or click on the black "and 11 more links" for a full list of all links I put on my page. Click on the links labeled for either DeviantArt, Pixiv, Tumblr, or Image Chest to easily see a gallery of my art. I've seen the first 50ish minutes of the video, and it takes him about 40 minutes to actually make an argument for why it's plagiarism, and I made a comment going into detail refuting it. (YouTube has a system, at least on mobile, that allows one to click on a tab to see all of the videos with timestamps, organized by that timestamp, which can be automatically synced up to the video as you watch it, which is why I made them separate comments: so that it plays nice with this feature. The timestamp I used for that comment is 38:33, so that should help you find it if you use the Find on Page feature on your browser.) Unless this video was literally made for no one other than those who already agree with him: then him constantly saying the use of AI is theft before he actually made a single argument for why it is, and actually making jokes about it being theft is an objective flaw, because it annoys the view, thus making them less likely to interpret the video in good faith, assuming they're even patient enough to get through the first 50 minutes at all. And even if they're open minded enough to at least try to be good faith (like me): what would be the point of annoying the people you're trying to convince? And even if we assume this video was solely made for people who already agree with him: that doesn't change the fact he made bad arguments, which if people tried to use against those who aren't against the use of AI would frankly leave them intellectually decimated if their debate rival has even average intelligence. Making the video bad even for those who already agree with him. It's not that I "haven't taken in any of the points", it's that the points are bad/unsubstantiated, and so I remain unconvinced. Videos have changed my mind before, one on Instant Runoff Voting did so recently (though that was partially with the help of a Wikipedia search I did afterwards). But if I let bad arguments convince me: then I would be a fool. The video essay is bad, and he does a terrible job arguing his position. Deal with it.