Raw LLM Responses

AI art is not necessarily theft. Look when I practice on a studio ghibli work starting with tracing, then mimicry, and then iterating to my own take that is ok, that is the process of learning. Though AI is not human the same reasoning applies. Now of course its different when a company downloads non copyrighted works, or trains an ai for commercial purposes on publicly available images without permission, or uses AI to infringe on a copyright by creating forgeries. And yeah that is a huge problem right now but that is not a problem with the technology itself only against how companies are using it. I am all for laws requiring consent from artists and even perhaps some payments or kickbacks to those who opt in for their arts use in training but the technology itself is not inherently theft or immoral or degenerate. I know of at least one guy who trains his own ai models using only data provided to him with consent, its rougher than what you'll find otherwise but its proof it can happen. Art and Blacksmithing: You don't have to like AI, you mention you don't like shads ai images, and that's fair enough, but you use the same arguments realists made against abstract artists condemning lack of skill and time input, criticizing its final look, etc. You can dislike it but it is a matter of taste. If what is most important to shad is getting an image he likes the looks of it does not matter if he isn't developing the skills to produce the whole thing by hand. I am a hobby blacksmith and I am fine using power tools to speed up the production of something rather than using the arguably better hand processes used a long time ago and that in some ways produce better results. Doing so means I don't develop and practice important skills in punching, hot cutting, and forge welding that are needed for the highest level of blacksmithing but if I only want to make hobby knives for friends family and maybe even local sale its ok to take the shortcut even though it competes with better smiths using older techniques. Blacksmithing is and was an art, one that we forgot was an art for some time, yet we would never go back to before the industrial revolution. Machined tools put millions of smiths out of jobs but we recognize that we gained a lot of utility with machining. Same thing with decorative pieces like mass produced ceramics, silverware, and textiles. Of course hand made things will always be worth more and will always have the input of human creativity and spirit that cant be fully replicated without human input but we can still find an ok balance of respecting artists for their awesomeness and skill and still find the ways generative ai can be for good. Artists: Yes this does devalue the work of artists, it inflates the market. Just as blacksmiths, potters, seamstresses, and dozens of other once common high skill artistic careers found their work devalued as machines came in and competed with their ability to produce. I once did some math when I was considering selling my forged pieces to see how much it would cost me to make an axe in materials and fuel alone, it came out to just about the same price I could buy an axe from my local hardware store, in the end it was better to make something else or to buy axe heads and then modify them rather than to make them from scrap. Again this is disappointing and I think we should all support artists now during this change, I am now a programmer and though I use AI for placeholder artwork I so far have used and in the future intend to use human made creations for all final products, its not perfect but its one of the best options out there right now. Legal consequences: Of course we should disclose its use though. copyright in the US at least only protects human made works, thus ai generated pieces ought not to fall under those protections at least under my opinion. To be faith though the art world has not always agreed, Duchamp's "fountain" is an example of something I remember my art teachers arguing was as much art as a painting because of the thought and composition of it despite it just being a signed photo of a urinal. But yes my opinion is that ai art can have its place in society but not as a protected work. Your not wrong that Shad is fulfilling more the role of an art director rather than a full artist here in these cases, your 100% correct that this is not purely the product of shad even if he did the prompt work, but that can be recognized while still seeing that AI can have a place in this sphere, even if its only for non copyrighted works, concept art, and other limited use cases. An aside on swears: As for shad using the r word he's from australia, that word and some other swears are just more common and acceptable there with only some more recent campaigns to get rid of their use. While I dont use the word or care for its use it makes some sense that an older aussie like shad might still use it. Breakdown of argument: Your argument seems two fold 1) AI art training is theft because companies are training off art that's not freely for anyone to use . Which is fair enough of a criticism in its own right at least most of the time and is something we can pass laws on to restrict and protect artists against. But then 2) AI art generator use is theft because the person using it is stealing other peoples skills that they aren't developing themselves. Which is not nearly as strong since we allow many instances of using mass produced or technical tools to do tasks without requiring as much skill as otherwise would be required and the support is also the conclusion. That is point 2 offers as its justification the same thing that is the claim, "x is theft because x is stealing" the only modifier is the suggestion that they ought to be developing those skills themselves which is not an obligation they have to live up to even if you think they should. Last thoughts: Anywho I know you likely wont agree but Its a grievance I have on this topic, AI critics have a point definitely, but I think so sometimes do at least some AI advocates. p.s. and no I never used AI in any of this, I added subject headers for clarity nothing else.