Raw LLM Responses

6:29-7:25 "I have also heard people said, AI takes inspiration from references, just like artists do. When someone said this, chances are, number 1, they don't understand the artistic creative process, or number 2, they don't understand AI works...." As an artist and a programmer, I can confidently tell you that you don't know what you are talking about here. AI cannot create a perfect replica, it wouldn't be AI at that point, no one would be using it because the generated image will be the same for everyone. Even with a trained AI, AI can't do anything without a human telling it what to do. The human element that you are talking about, is in the input prompt. There are countless ways to make an input prompt, just like there are countless ways to draw an art. However, I certainly won't call the person using AI to generate art, an artist. The person would be more like a narrator. If the AI that I made can only draw stick man figure despite using very wonderful well made arts as its data set, would it still be "replicating" and "copying" other people's work when I ask it to draw something unique? If not, then what is the objective measurement for it to be considered a replica? If it is good then it is a replica, if it is bad then its not? For AI to generate those images, they need more than just art. To achieve this, we need, thousands upon thousands of hours of programming (proprietary code), managing millions of data set, countless hours to tag all the data, many hours of training and fine tuning, and then lastly, the easiest part is the input prompt. All these are part of the human experience as well. The argument of human experience is simply the argument of having a larger data set. Unfortunately, these AI might have access to longer training time than you will ever have, and even have access to larger data set than you will ever be able to in your lifetime. If your argument stems from having more types of data set, then you need provide a clearly defined line as it how many types of data set one needs to be enough. If you think learning is steal. Perhaps you should take the advice from Picasso, "good artists copy/borrow, great artists steal". Nothing is new under the sun. The art you created can be enjoyed by other people because it has a certain resemblance to their experience. Only people who understand the artwork can enjoy it. AI has simply master this process and is able to create arts that can be enjoyed by other people because they have similar degree of resemblance as any other human drawn arts to the viewer's experience. This part is what we called latent space. We all do it automatically in our brain, but AI researchers are beginning to find out how we think and then implement them in AI. Let me be clear about it. I love art, and I love programming. AI art has the best of both worlds to me. It itself is the ultimate artwork, that can help other people to express their emotion without the need of the skill to express it. What I can do as a human in the process of making an art, AI should be able to do, because the machine is simply doing under the programmer's direction