Raw LLM Responses

so id also like to add a side to this arguement that people dont really acknowledge much but its kinda the core issues AI art isnt inherently bad its current use and implementation and forceable future implementation IS BAD the issue lies in the fact AI uses existing artist works sloppily hack jobs there work together and spits half baked abomination just passable enough to common person and in a way not sustainable financially for human artists today its large commercial push that is perpetually poorly implemented in a perfect world ai art could exist if we can over come the barrier of ai actaully being creative not a slap copy of existing art that is usaully skimmed and stolen off the internet if the training data was freely given or made for the ai if the developing party didnt have such large financially interest in seeing a profit that there willing to hasten eviromental collapse and flood the current market with slop that consumers dont want but now have to decipher what is real and what isnt AI as an outlet for creativity as a mode of access to wonder works of art ideally could and maybe should be a thing IF the current implmentation wasnt so horrendous and toxic to everything around it as someone who can draw but has barrier in his brain when it comes to making art (robotic autism that causes freezing in spontaneous creation) AI art would be a wonderful way to access the world of art but I also dont use it on principle that its an abomination that will only harm the world with its existence and use and to add to those that argue "if demand increases though that might encourage more sustainable practices" I point you almost any other business model that has been terrible for the world and the people usiung it and tell me its not coasting on "if it works dont fix it"