Raw LLM Responses

Comment split into 2 due to length. So, there seems to be a difference in definitions from what I understand. Him: An artist is one who turns their creative thought in their head into a visual form to share with others. You: An artist is one who has learned how to control a physical form to a high enough degree to be able to depict an idea in physical form. Basically, you are looking at the technical aspects of being an artist, he is looking at the creative aspects. So, he is wasting time when he grabs an AI image to make minor edits the AI could have done, but he is also wasting his capabilities to get better by learning how to prompt the AI? 27:45 (No effort to make the art? You know how much math and creativity it is to design these models? That's ignoring the massive amount of computational power you need. Bit more than no effort) 48:33 Currently multiple research idea are being worked on to come up with models that work with 0 human art used in the model. Such as having models control the steps of a brush over thousands of strokes, and comparing the end result with an image classifier. (Would that be acceptable to you? If human artist still lose their jobs to an inferior model that is "good enough" that wasn't trained on human art, because it's cheaper than a human?) Van Gogh made his own interpretation of the image, what if I like the idea, but having no idea of how to do art, I ask an AI to make the image at noon, and wit a robot carrying a human child instead of a bag? I'm assuming not since I don't have the technical skills, so my creative vision doesn't count. AI definitely has an style. Yellow saturation, face styles, etc. Even children can easily tell a lot of AI images from human images. Is it perfect, no of course not, but you also wouldn't be very accurate at guessing who at your school made a random piece of art as a class assignment(prompt). 41:40 Original use of the art work, not of the artist. If I use your images of how you paint a ocean, because I like your style, to train a model to make apply that filter to a picture of a city, that original artwork would NOT be a useful substitute. (Note, you can actually make a model really easily, and way easier than text to image models, with only needing limited sample images. Think more in the hundreds to low thousands of images. 47:01 You still need to learn how to use even well created products. Would you call someone who knows everything about excel, but couldn't create it themselves, as someone who hasn't learned it? What about programmer's who learn C or C++, or even the earliest languages like Cobol, who still don't know how the machine code works, or who couldn't make the hardware themselves. Would you say that just because they learn how to use the software, they haven't learned anything? Also, your wording here seems to imply the model doesn't learn, when we say a model has learned even if we are only making a simple model to predict breast cancer. 48:25 Even with languages like Python that means there is no real reason anyone has to learn deeper languages, we still have people today in 2025, learning machine code. Even with calculators, we still have people learn how to do math by hand. We just had some teenagers come up with a new way to prove Pythagorean Theorem, even with no reason to do so. People do what is fun, saying just because there is an easier, faster, cheaper way to do something, humans won't do it, is false. Less people, sure. Asking a human to make art takes time. People may be willing to pay 5 or even $20 a month for 1k images you get in 30 seconds, than pay a human $1 for an image in an hour. A human can not keep up with speed, and you can't assume money made from AI art models would have gone to human artists. 57:21 Again, not all of the money made from this would go to humans. I would argue that 90%+ wouldn't go to human artist. It's similar to the piracy argument( 1:12:38 Oh hey, you actually caught that good job! Should look into the piracy research done that shows the minimal actual loss occurred because of piracy, it was done in Europe. ), except instead of getting it cheaper, you also get it faster, but at a lower quality. If you only need a 3 star piece of work though, why pay 10x more for work that takes longer, for a 5 star quality though? How would you feel if a person made some AI art using these models, and once it got to a point they liked, then hired a human to basically recreate the art? What about models that are open source, or you run locally? Are those different since no companies are profiting from it? 54:42 LOL, yeah putting time and effort into learning useful skills gets you rewarded... HEHE. The moment you are not useful, you will be replaced. Look how many telephone operators were replaced. How many human calculators who went to school to learn how to do math really well were replaced. How many typographers who learned how to use a type writer really fast and well were replaced with Microsoft word. Oh, but creative jobs are different? What about photographers, who learned how to work with cameras, before everyone has a camera in their pocket that automatically handles all the settings for you, that was invented with tons of effort. And that is ignoring the huge ones during the industrial revolution or the end of the renaissance period, that is recent. Your skills, time, knowledge, and effort are not cared about or are there for you to be rewarded. Be nice if it did. But it has not been that world in your lifetime. If you thought it was, uh, IDK what to tell you. I'm glad you were optimistic I guess?