Raw LLM Responses

i’m an artist and i find AI art inspirational. perhaps it’s because im an abstract painter. people enjoy a story to art, and a craft behind it. so art and the artist is not going away. (but perhaps the random cartoonist freelancer might be). a dedicated craftsman toiled away at their years of experience and love of their work to create a product for you to wear. as opposed to hearing your shows were made by a slave worker in a foreign country on a conveyer belt with 1000 others all art is copying of some kind, but clearly that advice would not hold up in court. i think the AI companies are walking the line where art that is slightly changed in some way is not copying, and thus not illegal. i think they assume (correctly) that every once in a while the AI will basically rip a work from someone, but that person would have to be wealthy enough to pay fees for lawyers, and argue a very difficult case that a very slightly altered version of their work (created by a thing, not a human) is breaking copyright law. that will almost never happen. it’s an incredibly uphill battle, and even if the artists win 1 out of 20 of these cases (liberal estimate), the profits outweigh that spent for the AI company. not the case for the artists. AI is not going away and will likely not be defeated by a landmark civil rights case. it goes back to the classic idea of “just because google has all of human knowledge, doesn’t mean you will spend every second of your life studying and reading everything to become the smartest person on the planet.” just because people have access to copyrighted art, doesn’t mean they will sell it. a very small minority of people are buying art to begin with, let alone selling AI art and making a profit.