Raw LLM Responses

A person making a one to one copy is breaking the law, even if they succeed. But even then it’s kind of impressive that someone has the insane skill necessary to do that. A person using references still makes choices and they still have a personalized touch that an AI is incapable of having. An artist gathering a couple of inspiration images and a pose reference is still inevitably gonna create something unique with the combination of a them making sketches to test out ideas, intentionally choosing references, how they hold their pen, what brushes they own (if digital), what art material they use, who or what they learned from, how long they’ve been drawing for or how long they spend on their piece, their perspective and view on the pieces content, etc. If that piece then still doesn’t turn out very unique due to the choices the artist made during the process it’s considered theft or of lower value depending on how close they are to any originals they looked at. An AI is incapable of being affected by all these little factors that artists are. Not to mention that AI regularly have been found to produce pieces that are almost identical to an artists copyrighted piece so they’re not even always properly using learning from their massive databases. And this is entirely skipping over all the reasons AI artists shouldn’t be credited for their work. Honestly I barely even think the people who programmed the AI itself should get credit outside of the program. At most you can credit the software itself since they’re programmed to learn.