Raw LLM Responses

⁠​⁠​⁠@mcbean1The drawing part isn’t the theft, passing it off as your own original work is. But that wasn’t the point I was making anyway, this was in response to the previous person claiming that AI image generation models haven’t infringed on copyright by using copyrighted material in their datasets. I have already addressed your second point in my original comment. Artists are worried because large capitalist corporations are infringing on their copyright against their will and making a profit off of it while also weakening their job security. >90% junior artists in any field outcompete AI image generation when it comes to quality, accuracy and consistency, that might change in the future, but as I stated in my original comment, it is unclear whether or not it will actually get to that point. As for your last point: yes I do have a decent picture of the commercial applications of AI art. Feel free to enlighten me though, provide some examples. But perhaps it would be helpful to consider the financial makeup of the companies behind AI image models. Their scale is largely a result of blitz scaling techniques. Prices for these models are already rising steadily as is to be expected after inflated growth due to providing the service at a loss initially. The presence of many AI image generation models does not equate a commercial use for them. That would mean that the cost of generating the image is lower than the value generated by the image for the company, where is that the case so far? The only real application that I can see for AI image models and especially LLMs is mass data acquisition at the expense of its users.