Raw LLM Responses

I am an artist. The way I see it, is that if you're gonna use the technology to bring to life your ideas and projects you couldn't otherwise, as long as you add your own touch, I think it's a tool, to be used carefully. Let me give you an example: say I want to make a full length 2d animated movie, with my own artstyle, my own story and script. All by my lonesome I could never realistically do it. I can't make the 86,400 drawings the movie would need (12 frames per second, 60 seconds per minute, 120 minutes of film) by myself. Probably not even in my whole lifespan! Why not hire a bunch of animators, you say? They can do it, for a price. Well, I don't have the money to pay 50+ animators do help me do it. Not even enough to hire 1. Do a kickstarter you say, to help raise funds! Okay. What if it fails though? What if I can't offer incentives to support the project (because I don't have the money to make them) and people just don't really care about the project, or don't really see the project's potential the way I do? The movie either is made using this tech, or it doesn't get made, period, even if I have all the passion in the world for it. What would happen if I used these modern tools, though? I write the story, I make the character designs, concept art, examples of how I want the animation to look. Things I can realistically make. And then I input all of this into the program, and it begins pumping out the frames of the animated movie. I work at it, changing what needs to be changed, making it better, adding my own touch to it, and together, with a great deal of time, sweat and tears we make the movie happen. The program makes the 86,400 frames, all in my artstyle, with my direction and guidance, and the movie tells the story I wrote. Would it be wrong? Perhaps. Technically I'm not stealing the opportunity of paying a bunch of artists for the project, as I would have never hired them anyways because of the lack of funding. Those potential artists are neither making nor loosing any money. Technically, yes the program has used the work of millions to be trained, and it would use that gained knowledge in my project, even if I told it to use my own artstyle. And the project would add firewood to the flames of the ongoing discussion of the morality of AI art. People would probably call me a thief, and say the movie is crap, without actually judging the piece for itself. But would it be even worse to not make and release the movie, to let my expression, my story, my designs, all in my head, never for the world to see? Would the world be better or worse for it, if my movie was never made? It would certainly bring me great joy to see my vision give fruit. Is it fair that I want to make a movie but can't, because I don't have the resources to make it? Would it be fair to use these programs to make my vision come true? How much more great art has the world missed because of this lack of resources? How many amazing movies have we missed because this tech did not exist? How many will we miss if we limit ourselves because of the grey morality of this resource? (Truth be told, this is not, for the most part, a life-or-death situation, we aren't talking about people losing their lives. But maybe their livelihoods?) I do not have the answers. Truth be told I don't know if I would make a movie like this if I could. The amount of work that would still have to be made by me is still astronomical, and I'm not even counting music or voices, editing or any other part. Would people notice the work I put in, or just see the AI-drawn images and protest against?