Raw LLM Responses

(1) Argument from ignorance on AI learning like humans. Just a "Give me break" and a following cynical rant without reasonable argument. Neither did it ever matter that "AI learns like humans" but that it is transformative and does not store learned content 1:1, but heavily abstracts it instead. Of course there is a range of abstraction. Even I (the human, if you are unsure) can give away copyrighted lyrics 1:1. This is already clarified and approved by law and by many experts, who had the time and expertise to think about it, unlike the common YouTube artists/influencer. (2) It is possible to train AI on not copyrighted data, unlike claimed in the video. It just takes too much effort to filter/verify correctly, get enough of such data and will not satisfy the user, if he can't generate his favorite characters, idols, cars etc, or put his face into Pumping Iron (1977) on Arnold. (3) Cherry picked red herring on the "supporting Pokemon is supporting gambling"-accusation. Nobody really cares what virtues Pokemon wrecks. The issue is leeching on the fame of it by placing Pokemon figures next to you into your video. That is leeching on copyrighted non-original material. (4) "Disabled artists always find a way to do art". Yes, and same for walking. Let's throw away all wheelchairs. Find a way to walk with your arms maybe. Blind people will find a way to do martial arts, if they just would stop being so lazy. Seriously, never seen Blind Rage with Rudger Hauer? Just don't be poor. (sarcasm) (5) Some ridicule on the AI artists only creating pretty sexy women was given (exploiting sexual urges). Yet the presented art of the presented disabled artist does the same. It is a common trope with all the anti-AI crowd. They will present human artists they want you to support. Then they show their art ..... aaand its either copyrighted material of their favorite copyrighted cartoon/comic character in their respective copyrighted art style and/or sexy chicks. Not much original to see here. (6) Regarding the banana and the toilet artwork as satire on art. If you claim it as presentable valuable (meta)art, then the satire flew over your head. Like in that Black Mirror episode, where the guy got his own public show firing against the system. Also, such meta-stunt only works for already well-established names, not for no-names. Shows how much merit there is in the message (sarcasm). The point is that merit can be taken from different sources, be it external context or within the physical artwork. AI doesn't claim merit from external context (like fame, effort and skill of the artist), may not apply an original art style, but the merit is in the motive and its message. That the motive is usually crap (like the "pretty girl" prompt or shrimp jesus) is a display of human fallibility, not AIs. There somewhere lies hidden critic on majority of humanity being "not very clever", that they can't even imagine anything of merit given a genie in a bottle and infinite wishes, but dressed up as AI critic.