Raw LLM Responses

​@3alTemp 1. Your readiness at drawing conclusions about my persona based off of literally nothing beside your prejudice speaks loudly about your ego and desire to not engage in a dialogue on an equal basis, which I disapprove of. 2. Human brain processes images and seeks to recreate output similar to the thing it memorized, simply by association, hence why many artists do not have any unique style but follow an already established style, like anime characters with specific way of drawing head shape and eyes that differs from other styles. AI literally does the same. By your logic, from dataset it gets 'understanding' of reflections, proportions, etc. I fed AI pictures of a character from a game whose appearance matched exactly 1 art I ever found on the wide web and within the community of that game, and yet AI is capable of producing arts that do not recreate screenshots from the game that were used to make character's model. It was a case about 2 years ago, but since then learning and output processes were drastically redesigned. But let's say it does still 'recreate' only, taking my example from above where AI is capable of producing arts of a character that has been almost never drawn before - recreationary process is on such a small scale (like several pixels that form a curved line) along with many other sections of the picture that the picture as a whole is a totally new, original one by all standards. 3. Consent: every single author already gives consent to TOS of a website they publish their work at. Their work being available for download and use (be it sharing or photoshop edit etc.) is what they consent to automatically upon using the website and publishing their work there. If they don't like it, they always have services that hide their content unless it's paid for, like Patreon, but they still publish works in the open. Why? Simply because they won't get any fame and recognition they seek by hiding behind a paywall that vast majority of those who viewed their work won't pay for. 4. The point about characters from IP's was to highlight a hypocrisy. Because if artist claims that using their art to train AI on - is theft, then by same logic, their drawing which represents a character from an IP - does not belong to them, it belongs to IP owners, so they, by same logic - are committing theft whenever they claim that art is theirs or sell it for money. You might say "Character is not theirs, but art is theirs", but since content of an art they drew belongs to another, they cannot claim ownership over the art. That would be similar to taking an IRL country flag, putting it into your homebrew DnD campaign and saying "No, it's not the country flag! It's a flag of my invented, original kingdom!". Not to mention that, if we delve deeper into the whole 'theft', and 'recreation' argument, then artist that draws a character - recreate character's appearance, and they steal the concept and appearance of a character because they never asked consent to draw it from IP owner. Similarly to how those who train AI do not ask consent when training AI on artwork they collect. But for some reason, when artists do not ask consent - it's fine. But when AI doesn't - it's a problem.