Raw LLM Responses

I once had a conversation where an AI "artist" basically tried to defend it by saying "It hurt no one. They can't prove their work was stolen. If it actually hurt people, I'd stop." When I went through and showed with multiple lawsuits that had evidence that yes, it was stolen art and then I testified as an artist who has had a few pieces thrown in (not all of them to my knowledge, but I could find a couple), and more to prove that yes, using this hurts people. Suddenly her excuse shifted to "Well, I would stop if you showed it hurt the environment." Me: *slapped down multiple studies showing that this is destroying our planet.* "....I'm still going to use it." It was one of those moments where I basically was both frustrated, but also so vindicated in basically going "Then don't you dare say you care about any of these things. Because I just proved that you don't. Not as much as you care about yourself and what you think you want/need." Other excuses (besides the "for the disabled artist") that I've seen frequently is the "but it makes art cheaper and more accessible for the less rich." Which, one, considering you have to pay for most of these services, no, it does not. Two, the idea that you must be rich to make art is so laughably incorrect. For the record, Monet--one of the greatest artists of all time-- had his entire painting career shift in part due to money problems. He started off doing the huge 4+ foot canvases that were in vogue when he first launched onto the scene. But he struggled to finish pieces partly because as a new upcoming artist, he had little money and thus couldn't afford supplies. So he would basically pawn off some of his works in progress to buy more paint, or some other supply. (In fact, one of his pieces was never finished because it was perpetually being pawned off and then bought back only to be pawned again.) It became such a loop that he swore off large canvases and began painting on smaller sizes. Which actually made him more popular because his canvases were small enough to fit in most luggage at the time. So Americans not only fell in love with Impressionism but also Monet in particular because his pieces were just the right size to cart back home after their European excursions. So Monet started to turn a profit because he was able to sell so many as well as produce faster than some of the other artists of the day. Which was why he was able to return to bigger canvases and more experimental works in his later days. Because he was finally rich enough to not have to worry about if he could afford that much paint or what would happen if he didn't produce a painting by this or that deadline. He could spend all the time he wanted on it. Hell, he could finally afford to not worry if he threw a paintbrush at an intrusive fan (yes, he did this with a very snarky comment) because he could just buy a new one. Monet's success was directly influenced by his poverty early on and his learned frugality in supplies led to his success. You do not need to be rich to make art or become a great artist. Monet alone disproves that. Also, for the record, he also disproves the disability part as he suffered with cataracts in his later life which did not keep him from painting. It just altered his palette and technique. He only stopped painting when the treatments for his cataracts led to him being in and out of surgery multiple times over a couple years and his health overall dipped due to that while his sight continued to decline since the surgeries didn't work. So... he literally went from able-bodied to disabled and still kept going until he was just too old and weak to keep going. Also one of the great sculptors of that time, Matisse, lost a lot of mobility due to a cancer and medical complications. He switched to paper art and when his motor skills declined more, he just had assistants cut the shapes he needed and directed them on how to assemble them. And Matisse flat out said that for him, this proved that an artist should never be tied down by their own body, style, reputation, success, or anything else. And if you go "but there's so many *blank* artists" to whine about diversity, there's more to disprove you. Artemisia Gentileschi was a rare female painter who took the adversity in her life and used it to question male partriarchal standards through her work. She took the idea of women needing to look pretty in any act and accept male attention, and Artemisia said "How about I make the women in my paintings FEEL. They can feel rage, they can be powerful, they can be disgusted, ashamed, reject the male gaze and you can't stop me." Hokusai is one of the most prolific artists of all time and he was not white. I could keep going but I won't. Every part of the "cheaper, easier, less biased, for the disabled" is ignorant and wrong. You can create art no matter how poor you are, no matter how able-bodied you are, no matter how popular you are, no matter your gender, no matter your nationality, no matter any obstacle you perceive in your way. People have done it before. You can do it too. There is nothing stopping you but yourself. If you don't make art despite wanting to... the AI won't fix that. Because it's a matter of dedication and work, not any of the other things.