Raw LLM Responses

While you may see me as another "AI supporter", I did engage with your video and I'd appreciate your thoughts on my perspective. Neural networks don't store images. Instead, they adjust internal weights and biases to recognize and replicate patterns, akin to how we learn techniques and styles in drawing. We don't store every image, and similarly, neural networks don't retain images but the learned parameters. Contrary to your video statement that AI can create a perfect replica, it's technically unfeasible. Neural networks can't reproduce exact images as they lack the actual image data, they only have the learned numerical parameters. If companies should pay for using your Instagram images for model training, should every viewer pay too? After all, they could learn and replicate your style as well. Machines learn like we do, just faster. Your artwork, like everyone's, is shaped by countless copyrighted pictures, movies, and photos you've seen. Creativity doesn't appear out of nowhere; it's built on what we've seen before. But just because we're inspired by others' work, it doesn't mean we owe them money The term "inspiration" often used by artists is essentially appreciation of patterns seen in others' work, which they aspire to replicate in their own creations. It's not mystical, it's pattern recognition and application, similar to how neural networks operate. I know you think it's not the same as "human inspiration" but it actually is pretty much the same. Unless you believe that we have a soul we are nothing but very complex "machine" learning algorithms. I also know you think "artists express their feelings and their lived experiences with every stroke" but most people really don't care about that and see art as mere eye candy. You may think this is disrespectful, and it's valid to think so. However, (and you will roll your eyes after reading this) no matter what you do, it's impossible to stop it. This situation is reminiscent of the laws against internet piracy, which despite their severity, have never worked due to the impossibility in tracking and controlling it. Similarly, if someone trains an AI with your art, it's nearly impossible to prevent or even detect. Just like I said, AI learns from patterns in your art but doesn't retain the original images, making it impossible to trace the source. No law can control this, especially when individual users across the globe can freely access and use your work. At the end of the day if I need an image that looks like the ones you posted. I won't spend money on buying one if I can train an open source model with your images (perhaps in combination with others) to get the result I need. Specially considering that if I spend some time fine tuning everything to my liking I can even get a better result or at least a result that is more in line to what I'm thinking for $0. No one would know I used your images to train my model and even if they did, there would be no way to prove it in court. Basically my way of thinking about it is the following: 1) There is no difference between you learning from copyrighted work and a machine doing the same. 2) Therefore I don't see it as something that should be illegal 3) Even if you or anyone considers it morally wrong, no laws will be able to do anything about it. 4) As a way to keep "real" art alive I think we could develop some technology that labels AI art in same way (not watermarks, something that actually works). Then AI art won't be compared with human art because we value the human aspect of it, all the merit and the effort it takes to draw the image due to the task being difficult. Much like men's sports are separate from women's sports for a similar reason.