Raw LLM Responses

Well, with >6000k comments, nobody will read this, but I disagree with this person and video. A digital tablet is a tool, a paintbrush is a tool, knowing how to mix paints is a skill. An AI-assistant, is also a tool. Knowing how to mix AI, is a skill. It's inevitable that artwork, digital or photographed, will appear as images on the internet. Once an artist posts an image or photo of art, in any way, it is going to be there for scraping. So what then? Yes, for many artists, it is completely disruptive. This is a new era of AI unfolding, and new things are going to happen. If I were a visual artist, I would embrace this new technology instead of blanket rejecting it for copyright reasons. Many artists will find ways to adapt, or not even have any problem having their work used. The more an artist's 'visualization' is used, the more famous they will get, and I'm thinking that with the use of NFTs and other new technologies, the demand for 'originals' will increase, and thus value. I do think that artist's should be able to opt out, which will minimize their work's use. I think what is really disruptive, and scaring the shit out of digital/photo artists, is that with AI, anyone can make creative, gorgeous art. But really, what separates the true artist from just an AI hacker with no artistic experience, is the ability to embrace the new tool and *discern*. Discerning obviously being the key word here. That takes years of study and practice. I don't have all the answers; this is just the beginning of the AI revolution. Things are going to unfold very rapidly in ways that we can't even imagine in the next 5-10 years. Everything changes, lately it seems very rapidly. Those that can adapt, for whatever reason, intent, or with whatever classic or newfound skills and tools in their kit, survive. Here's an idea, why not just have all AI image scrapers be required to reject any images that have an 'opt-out' watermark. Just the words 'opt out' is all that is needed. If an AI-scraper does not abide, or is found to be containing 'opt-out' watermarked images, then it can be sued for infringement. This would likely have to be legislated as a new or added to international copyright law (or related). I'd be all for that. It would be undeniable by the AI-scraping company, because the image would be there, so that's it. The AI and associated company *automatically loses* if the 'opt out' image appears in the data-set OR a generated result. That would protect small artists as well, because if they find their 'opt-out' watermarked image in the AI data, then they know even before filing, that they will win. AI-scrapers and companies would thus likely abide to a large degree, because such easily filed claims would make it too expensive for the company to profit. Makes sense to me.