Raw LLM Responses

Hi, I think this video, like a lot of your other videos, is really well done. Your visual style is very cool and depth of research is apparent. One thing that I think you gloss over in this video is that machine learning is not the same as an artist, and by anthropomorphizing them, you are both giving it too much credit and buying into the narrative of the people who are making it. AI is not like a person, and isn't creative. It isn't being inspired, or gathering influences and merging them together to further the work, as you mention in your joke and copyright section. Machine learning is pretty much like an Instagram filter. It takes in an input and does linear regression on it until it maximizes whatever it is supposed to and outputs the result. If you compare that with the unknown process of taking in information and inspiration from the world along with an individual's experience and using those connections to create a new thing, it doesn't line up one to one. I think that thought slimes recent video does a good job of explaining the distinction. Phil Edwards also made a video on this topic that does an interesting job of comparing it to the automation of lace, which all but wiped out the lace industry during the turn of the century. I know you want to see the human in the technology, and I definitely appreciate that sentiment, especially with AI. AI serves to magnify our cultural biases through the data we feed it and its ability to recognize the patterns of society without the ability to question them. However, AI is not human, and cannot create in the way that people can. Already, AI work is unable to be copyrighted, as it doesn't have a creator. I agree with the fundamental problems with copyright, but that is not my critique of AI art. Phil's Video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfVHXDty5Pk ThoughtSlime:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSLd3Mb85BY