Raw LLM Responses

The real issue is and always has been that artists are worried about losing their jobs to AI. I get it, it is scary, I am sorry. This has happened to everyone that automation has affected. Auto workers losing their jobs to robot arms, Amazon warehouse workers being phased out for robots, and it's only going to get worse. AI isn't going anywhere, get onboard quick. The ideal art-based employee will be ones with real art skills who are also excellent with AI. The ones who can use a prompt with AI to get 90-95% of the way there within seconds and then use their own art skills to fix any AI issues, like 7 fingers on a hand. That is who companies will want. People railing against AI will lose no matter how this goes. If they fail to get with the program based on principal, they will be left behind, the same way that people who refused to get onboard with computers were. If there is regulation, it will attempt to ensure that mega corporations still have access because they "ethically" trained their AI on their own copyrighted works, but will probably have "unethically" trained it on everything, at the very least because the base model probably already was, and just hope not to get caught. If successful, this will create a sort of AI art wealth gap where the ultra-wealthy with multi-billion-dollar IP's under their belt are AI wealthy while everyone else is made AI poor. Even if you don't want to use fully generative AI to make something from start to finish, figure out how to incorporate it into your workflow to enhance productivity. AI is already too good, it's too open source, it's already out in the wild and can't be put back in the bottle even if they wanted to. There is no choice but to adapt and move forward. In regard to accessibility: AI actually does open up possibilities for disabled people. Yes, there are people who learn to paint with their mouths and toes, but would they have to or want to do that if they could speak their vision into existence instead? You have found a disabled friend, who has a disability that is clearly not severe enough to be the type of disability people are talking about when discussing generative AI as an accessibility tool, who has given you permission to think that AI isn't an accessibility issue. "Yeah, they can just use their mouths and toes!" -you kidding me? And the one time people are thinking of disabled people and the accessibility implications, she's all "Well don't start now." -Really? No. Go back to realizing that you might be accidentally disenfranchising people, that was the correct stance, not the one that reinforces your confirmation bias. As for the "ethical" concerns: There is nothing new under the sun. All modern artists learn from, are inspired by, and iterate upon copyrighted work. Humans can't help but learn from copyrighted works, simply by having seen them. Many actively copy those works or draw fan art of it as they practice, or just for fun, which is technically copyright infringement. It is just not a big enough problem, or if we are being honest about corporate greed, there's not enough surveillance and it would be too expensive for a company to bother with enforcement in most cases. It's not theft for AI to be trained on copyrighted work anymore than it is for a human to train themselves on it. People take issue with AI doing it because it does it so very much better and because the process is so much more obvious than normal human learning. "Oh no! The environment!" No. The world isn't running out of water or energy. The conservation of matter means that the word still has just as much water as it always has. Why is it that environmentalists always want to inconvenience everyone and everything with conservation instead of increasing clean water availability by building infrastructure? "Oh no, global warming!" The planet warms and cools over time, do go look up how people were afraid that human activity was going to cause an ice age in the 70's to see how quickly this alarmist, environmental pearl clutching swings this way and that. "Oh no, climate change!" The climate is always changing. Science shows that the deserts of Arizona used to be a rain forest millions of years ago, we didn't turn it into a desert. Australia is currently cruising toward China at a rate of 2.8 inches per year, humans aren't causing that any more than we broke up Pangea in the first place, to the very best of our knowledge. The planet is always changing. It doesn't mean we shouldn't be good environmental stewards, but it's not an excuse to shut down AI. This is just grabbing at any emotional manipulation tactic to try to get people on side. "Oh no, the polar ice caps are melting cause of AI! We have to save the cute polar bears and penguins! Right?" "Oh no, the children of the future! Right?" -No. What is most likely to save the polar bears and penguins and children of the future? AI. AI that will research the environmental data and see things no amount of human calculation ever could and provide solutions. Children saved by cures for cancer and other illness by AI-powered protein folding simulations and rapid drug prototyping. As I said above, AI isn't going anywhere. The corporations want regulation to monopolize it for their own use. Don't root for that outcome. The arguments against it are all rationalizations and emotional arguments to try to justify what is essentially "I don't want to lose my job to AI" and the solution is to learn to incorporate AI into your workflow as soon as possible. And that goes for everyone in every field, regardless of the type of AI that touches your industry. Whether it makes pie charts or writes reports or shows you the optimal way to throw a ball, get onboard.