Raw LLM Responses

The problem with many of the videos discussing this topic, is they begin with "we have to understand how it works".. And then give a huge over-simplification, while at the same time Vastly over-blowing other aspects of it to make it sound worse, and throwing around accusations that just haven't been proven! Whether people realize it or not, they're framing a false-narrative here. These AI models DO indeed create novel imagery that never existed before, just as much as they can attempt to recreate existing content if specifically asked. It's all about your prompt. They are NOT trained on "billions of copyrighted works", that is another subtle but major accusation without proof. Nor is it a "specific dataset" of art.. It's a dataset that contains as much of everything as possible, the opposite of specific, it is general! The datasets contain "billions" of properly licensed photos of real-world stuff, so the AI gets a general knowledge of everything. A portion of it's training dataset also contains art, but there is no evidence that the dataset contains anything but a small portion of non-consenting works. It does NOT need to contain an artist's works directly, to be able to mimic their style. The AI can learn how to mimic styles just from lookalike artists who draw in similar styles. Which has a lot to do with how images are tagged with descriptions. The Afghan Girl image, which he showed in this video, for example.. If you search DeviantArt for that, you'll get tons of human drawn art from long before AI art existed, all that look nearly identical to the original photograph. So not only can the AI learn second-hand from secondary artists, it's also not producing "copies" of things any more than humans are. In reality, the way people are feeling now, happens any time new technology hits the art-world. “Why, Mr. Stieglitz, you won’t insist that a photograph can possibly be a work of art – you are a fanatic!” Director, Metropolitan Museum of Art, NYC. 1902 It's shocking that people now, really can't put themselves in the minds of artist from around that time, who saw photography as every bit as artificial and non-human, as some people see AI art today. Every single argument they're making right now, was made in the exact same way over 100 years ago. Right down to the accusations of theft! Back then a common argument against photography was no one would buy art if they could steal it by taking a photo of it. Obviously today we know why that's not a real issue, and someday the same will be said about the Anti-AI arguments. It's just a new genre of art, a new tool creators can use. Once the novelty wears off, it won't replace anything, it will just add more ways people can create stuff.