Raw LLM Responses

A lot of it is, artists are ignorant to how AI is made, what goes into it, and the history of the tech. So they discredit it and call it soulless. Because all they see is the final product with zero context. Every single time I see an arguement from an artist over why ai art is bad that isnt from a legal standpoint. It just goes to show that people are scared of that which they don't understand. As stupid as it is, its functionally just xenophiba/racism but towards a computer. Which gets a chuckle out of me. AI has a huge history in comp sci, with tens of thousands of people as part of it. With a massive history. To see the efforts of all those people come together to create a picture, even a bad one. It's absolutely a wonderful expression of human perseverance and effort. Early models using stolen art as a resource is awful. But it was a short-lived problem, even now most major models are using fully licensed art libraries to train models. Functionally if you see AI art as soulless, its because you are ignorant to the effort of the people who made it possiable. It's no different from a normal person seeing a picture and thinking little more than "pretty or ugly picture". Most normal people do not care about the thoughts of the artists, or why they did something. They only see the final result. They are ignorant of what goes into actually making the art beyond a very basic understanding most times. So its just not a care they have. Artists are just up their own asses effectively because they don't understand or care about the comp sci and mathematicians that worked so hard to create what they are seeing.