Raw LLM Responses

@danotebookarchivist I honestly have no problem with that as long as it differs enough from an exact original work of mine. There is no law against copying a style and it's not a bad thing. Sure...optimally it would be better if you get credit when someone bases their work explicitly on yours... But in the end i consider creating a prompt an art-form in itself. I personally am pretty shitty at it and it doesn't give me nearly as much satisfaction as an artist as completing a piece on physical paper on my own. But...if someone feels satisfied with that and they find people who buy their stuff...that's okay. If people don't want "real" art (which is a hard to define word as any bigger modern art-exhibition will show you) as we have known it, artists have to change or live with the fact that their form of art is less requested or cherished. I personally find most AI-art too generic and feeling soulless. But that's a me-problem, not a they-problem. Now you might argue "but that art is only possible because the model was trained on original works". Okay...we might have legal issues here depending on the specific case. Valid. But i wouldn't argue against the process itself as long as it stays within legal area which is certainly difficult in many cases, no question. But the process itself is okay. If someone creates a tool that i then use to learn something that helps me do the original task way faster, that is pretty normal and nothing inherently bad. I am also pretty certain that critical artists do or will use AI in connection with "traditional" means to create pieces that show the subjective shortcomings of AI-art. So in short i think outrage is not the optimal solution (to pretty much anything honestly). Intelligent engagement should be the way to go.