Raw LLM Responses

@snaphaan5049 If developers created an AI that could create impressive images WITHOUT consuming millions of unconsenting Artists work to do it, and Artists got mad about it, I could see your point about tech as it would resemble how automation normally develops in society. But how can you not see the DIRECT antagonism that comes from companies creating datasets that access artists unique lifetime body of artwork WITHOUT consent? Does consent matter to you at all? Should tech companies be able to use anything they can find, as long as it's possible and under the name of "progress"? Going by that logic where does the line stop? If you uploaded family pics to Facebook should AI companies be entitled to scrape that and create deepfakes of them and make them do or say unsavoury things? You may say that's different but the key theme is consent. Also, telling her "You are not an artist" doesn't even make sense when that's literally what she is. It just shows me how desperate people are to separate the art from it's owner, and usually when I see people do this it's so they can benefit off it as guilt free as possible. Developers may use human-like terms like 'learning' and 'intelligence' but this AI is not yet sentient, it's not an entity set loose in the sea of the internet (a privacy, national security and ethical landmine we have yet to cross) it's a system based on intentional and closed datasets ultimately decided by humans. And I'd argue if it does become sentient, humans would have even LESS claim to the things it generates, and even LESS right to get it to do the things they want, as people would then argue it would have its own independent sovereign rights also capable of consent.