Raw LLM Responses

I personally don't use AI in my artworks myself, because I am way too perfectionistic to let some machine do something when it can't know what my vision is, but the learning like a human argument is less absurd than it may seem. The way you present it here with the weird voice filter makes it seem absurd for sure, but I think that the difference is not as clear. I am in no way an expert on this, so if you can pin point where the difference lies, feel free to let me know, but my reasoning is the following: In your description of how AI learns, you compare human learning with a word salad of scientific terms to describe AI learning. This word salad is actually correct, but human learning can be described with a word salad too. If we compare those salads, we realize that the way we learn isn't that different. Machine learning is inspired by neural networks in real brains. Our brain gets a lot of information inputted from all kinds of senses and our neurons are linked. When we get information about some concept like what a cat is or how we form a grammatically correct sentence, the links that fit this pattern get stronger. This is how we learn. And when we try to access information about some concept from our brain, the strongest links are easiest to access, while the weaker ones are unlikely, but not impossible. Sometimes we remember something we almost forgot. At least when it comes to text output by likelihood for the next word, this might be closer than we think to how we form sentences. Of course, we don't speak word for word, because we generate parts of the sentence in our head and greenlight if we want to say it, or rephrase, but the generating of the content itself is very similar. When it comes to images, this is different, because when we paint something, we have to physically add strokes of paint one by one, while the AI just converges to one image without this process. But the AI image generation may be more similar to the vision we have in our mind, before we draw it on the paper. The way that we generate an image in our head is subconscious and also powered by our neural network and statistics. Just like how AI does it. If we had an AI robot with a paint brush that had to draw the image after generating it in its head, this would resemble the real artistic process of human artists much more closely. So where is the difference? Maybe the amount of data inputted is more compared to what we learned, but I don't see how this would be relevant to copyright, since when talking about copyright infringement. And how do we even measure that? How much data was inputted into our brains? If we just look at our eyes and assume we see 4k video with 24fps twice for our entire life, combined with all other kinds of data from our senses, this might even be about the same amount. Of course, our brain filters for most important information when receiving visual input, but that is still a lot of data. Is it more or less or the same? Hard to say, but it is still a lot. Copyright infringement should not be a question of scale. Even a little is bad. I am not sure if there really is a copyright issue with the training. When you tell AI to make an image of Darth Vader and post it online, this may be copyright infringement, but if you ask a human to draw an image of Darth Vader and post it online, we have the same case. This is the copyright problem, but it has nothing to do with the training. We all have an image of Darth Vader in our head. If we decide to export it outside our heads on paper or drawing it digitally or 3d modeling and when we decide to publish it, this is the point where the Vader in our head becomes copyright infringement. If it is justvin our head, that is no problem, but just inevitable and also something that Disney would want, because you should recognize and buy their merch. The copyright infringement is created by the user who publishes copyright infringing content. The problem I see with "AI artists" is that the claim to be the artist themselves and they used a tool, while in reality, it is more like commissioning an artist to do something for you.