Raw LLM Responses

i had this mostly written and I accidentally pressed the cancel button but here it is again: I completely agree with almost all of your points, but there are some things that I think I have to point out. 1. The training point. I agree that there needs to be more rules about training AI on copyrighted data, but it is not like AI is hitting ctrl+s, printing it out, and then selling it at the local farmer’s market, it is looking at it and trying to figure out the best way to simulate how humans create art. This is why people say that “training AI is like teaching a toddler” or however you say it, and all you do to combat this point is call it “propaganda” over and over. The truth is, if a monkey looked at how people made art, looked at every painting ever, and started making art, it wouldn’t be getting any hate WHATSOEVER. I know that I didn’t get any hate when I painted Van Gogh’s “starry night” in the style of another painter, Seurat. In fact, it was a school project to paint in the style of a painter, and no one cared when I painted a famous painting in the style of a different famous painter. In fact, they loved it so much that it was displayed in the front room of the school for months. It’s not fair to call it stealing if all AI is doing is analyzing it. You also failed to mention that all the copyrighted material that is AI generated that disney is freaking out over is prompted by random people. I will talk about this in my third point. 2. The water issue. I have seen comments on other youtube videos about how their relatives live near a data center, and their water pressure is bad, or their water is murky or cloudy, and I think that this is a problem along with the constant noise of the data centers, but the argument that your article poses is a huge weakness. It starts by talking about random facts about how much water everyone needs, etc., avoiding what the headline is about, and then barely mentions how the data centers use the water (they mention that they use it to cool the computers, and the water evaporates, like they haven’t heard about the water cycle, as well as all throughout the article treating water as a limited resource that disappears forever, bringing up random numbers, etc.) and now that they are almost to their point, they are way past halfway through the article (partially the fault of the numerous ads and the related articles linked at the bottom, as well as other stuff, but the distance from their first point about how tech companies are actually USING water is closer to the final sentence of the article than the first one), and they finish up by saying the big tech companies say that they will mitigate how much water they are using up “But it’s not clear how they’ll be able to do that when there’s simply not enough water.” then they say that AI should be created with three questions in mind, and, of course, question 3 is basically question 2 but more, and closes by talking about holistic thinking, vaguely says “Our tech titans have opened the AI Pandora’s box, and how we ethically take more social responsibility remains to be seen. This will require more regulation and scrutiny.” and gives one more quote that ends with “But water is in deep trouble.” this entire article sounds like a fifth grader who (1) hasn’t learned about the water cycle (or forgot everything about it), (2) hasn’t done their research, and (3) the little research they have done is not cited well, is irrelevant like they were keyword searching, and not helpful to the overall argument. I am NOT saying that this is not a problem, I am just pointing out that there is little resistance to AI because THESE are the arguments that some people are making. 3. The Midjourney homepage point. It is strange that there are images of this on Midjourney’s homepage, and i think that they should change that, maybe changing the algorithm that puts stuff on the homepage, or even have a human do it, but i don’t think this should be a MAJOR point about why AI art is bad, because there are better reasons. It’s not the company’s fault that the AI generates copyrighted content, just like it isn’t the gun manufacturer’s fault that someone was murdered by one of their weapons. It was the fault of the user that generated copyrighted material, and then an automated algorithm (probably) that caused it to be there. Summary: I agree that some companies are dirty scumbags that need to be put through an ethics class, I just don't think that the AI companies are those ones. you YOURSELF talked about how long disney went ON and ON giving EXAMPLE after EXAMPLE, trying to make their opponent look as evil as possible. I AGREE that there are real problems that need to be dealt with, but these arguments that you put forth are just showing why AI is still in need of changing, because if strong arguments can't change their mind, then weak ones have no chance.