Raw LLM Responses

1:01:22 Why hire an AI artist? You can hire a teenager who hasn't gone to school a lot less than you would an actual artist, for a lot more output. Why not do it themselves, well even asking them to do it still takes time. It's why you hire secretaries to answer phone calls can emails for you, you can do the work while eating, but you have too much, and it still takes too much of your time, you are losing money doing it yourself rather than hire someone to do it for you. 1:02:15 So, the idea itself has no worth? Art only has value if you put the technical skills to do it? That sounds like you are very skilled, but you have lost sight of why people want art. People don't like AI art because it's low quality, and the people making it seem to make the same repetitive work, without even checking to see if it exists first. (That, and natural resistance that comes with all new technology. How many people were against social media when it first became a thing?). But most people want art because it looks nicer than a white wall. Not because of the skill level. Like, people enjoyed the jungle book, but not because it was technically hard, even with Glen Keane doing feats of artistry that basically no one else could do. 1:03:34 Why, because to get to a level of quality you yourself find acceptable, may be beyond what some people can reach. But right, their creative ideas aren't worth anything if they don't have the technical skills, I keep forgetting. 1:05:41 He's referring to drawing on pen and paper vs using tools like photoshop. 1:12:31 The technology can be dangerous, or even destroy a community. Does not mean it's bad. How many jobs has computers destroyed from being just frankly faster, more reliable, and better than humans? How much fraud, crime, even just bad will, has been made thanks to computers. Computers are absolutely not great. But they have also generated tons of jobs, and helped a ton of people. How many blind people benefit from being able to call someone to help them do their own groceries? How many charities occur? Just because there is downsides, does not mean the technology is bad. 1:17:03 Oh, so something is wrong with him making a n 1.5 hour long video? Kina ironic to hear on an 1.5 hour long video.... 1:17:25 Making animation available for the average person = translation, Anyone can do with <5 mins of training, and could make for friends as a joke without comments on making the animation, and only comments about the content of the animation. AKA, the same difficulty as finding and sharing memes, or doing tik tok dances. Tons of resources does not translate to everyone able to do it. Difference in time, natural aptitude, language differences, etc prevents what you find accessible, and what others find accessible. This is basically saying "Making websites easy to make so every company and random joe out there can make their own website is stupid. Anyone can learn HTML, CSS and JS. They are all open source, and tons of resources, why not just go and learn it, why use a framework that lets you make a polished website in 5 mins? You don't even have control over the website? You aren't improving yourself or gaining skills having the computer make the website for you. " The goal for most people is not the skills, it's the final website. 1:19:49 So, the issue is that automation now is using the skills of the workers where the skills of the worker has never been used in the automation of jobs in the past? Hmm, you might want to look into that a bit. I mean, why do you think the luddites were upset? You think it's just because they were crazy? 1:29:37 Slightly different. It would be more like saying that hey, You aren't allowed to look up the results of any of the astrophysicist, unless you go spend years, becoming one. Overall, pretty comprehensive, but I think the main difference is difference of definitions. What happens in a few years(probably under a decade or 2 looking at what has happened in the past decade), when individuals can train their own models, on their PCs at home or on a server for a few cents, with a handful of examples? Does that change anything? What do you actually want to accomplish? Make AI art image gens illegal? Make it illegal only for corporations? What if someone uses a model from another country? That all companies must hire a human for any public art? What about people who are disabled, and use Speech to text with AI to make art? Is all their creativity not valid because they can't control the brush? Why is the camera argument the only time in his video you sped up? It makes it seem like you don't feel confident in your own rebuttal. I'm sure you are, but just seems weird. Humans hate repetition, so isn't it likely that AI art would go through faster phases? Just as news cycles have speed up, perhaps all this will do is allow faster iteration of memes and styles and popularity? And if you think no one likes it, then wouldn't that mean that it will naturally die out? Or suddenly it won't die out, because the AI artist are keeping it alive?