Raw LLM Responses

Interesting video. As someone who tries to practice critical thinking, I am constantly evaluating both sides of an argument, people for, and people against the point of focus. The narrative in this video is interesting, to me, interesting in a way that ends up actually supporting Ai art more than it criticises it, even though I know this is not the intention. The Narrator in this message states “Rembrandt is not just a lighting style, it’s not a rendering style”, a Rembrandt is a product created by a man with a long provenance, a provenance of inspiration from other artists, from where he slept, the food he ate, his emotions, his work is a sign of culture at a Moment in time. Well, Ai art is not just computer code, it’s not a direct ripoff of another’s work, ai art is a product created by software with a provenance of inspiration from billions of data sets, data sets that include human artist expressionistic output, where these humans slept, ate etc… ai art is a sign of culture and a moment in time. Ai art is not claiming identity, Ai art takes input instructions to create output. Claiming identity is a human trait. Whilst there is human art forgery, there will likely be Ai art forgery, and yes, it will be easier and more accessible to create forgery or identity theft from ai art, but, Ai art is not identity theft, unless the Ai is specifically told to recreate someone else’s work, in which case it’s the fault of the human driving the Ai, not the Ai itself. ai art should not be crucified because it is an evolutionary step in Computing. I appreciate both sides of the argument and, as an artist myself, I have lived through and witnessed music going from reel to reel to DAW software, with plugins that put traditional recording studios out of business, from film editing on machines worth millions of dollars, to software running on a PC, putting post studios out of business, but, at the same time it has enabled a whole new level of creativity. Creativity is providing solutions to problems via the reorganisation of existing things and whilst I see the initial impact that ai art is having to artists I see the excitement is it providing to non artists about the power of art. The same thing happened with photoshop, Logic Pro, Final Cut Pro and many others. As artists we inspire others including the next generation, and many “good” artists survive if not thrive through these advancements as consumer demand is uplifted. Either way I am happy art and creativity is being discussed again and I am looking forward to seeing where this breakthrough takes us. I feel sorry for those artists who will not change and be left behind and recognise monumental shifts of any kind cause massive fragmentation. I do not feel that Ai and it’s impact on art is stopping anytime soon and as such recognise the importance of riding the wave rather than being drowned by it. Now in regards to identity theft of digital art, there are numerous algorithms available, and in some cases in place, that can immediately identify works belonging to someone else “identity theft “ then take assigned action. I have worked in this space in relation to video with my old technology Linius, and have been in and around other technologies that identify non genuine works. How organisations choose to use these technologies, is up to the entity distributing the content. As artists we need to be aware of these types of technologies, and if pertinent, insist it be used, especially in cases where a 3rd party distributes an artists content.