Raw LLM Responses

Whoa, whoa, whoa, slowly, young Padawan. You seem to be quite angry (and quite rightfully so), but let’s not confuse things. For context, I loved AI when it first emerged out of nowhere back in the day and spent endless happy hours with it. I quickly decided to become a teacher of generative AI and start my own shop “Cats & Dragons” with AI-designs. Little did I know about the dark side of AI and when I learned, my new career came to a halt. I just can’t represent something if it doesn’t align with my values. That being said, let me address some of your arguments. I am one of those people who would draw a comparison with photography. Is photography art if the photographer just pushes a button and a machine “paints” the image? Compared to a painter who spends countless hours, maybe even years, learning their craft? I would say yes and many would agree. However, most people push the button without much thought or skill, so you wouldn't call it art. The same goes for the sad flood of AI slop. But that doesn’t mean it CAN’T be art. In this context, you mention that no photographer needs to exploit artists. Here, I think you have fallen for the narrative of big tech. Just because big tech bros tell you that it's impossible to train general AI without ignoring copyright and exploiting artists - because that's what they did, and now they want to justify it - doesn't mean that it can't be done without those questionable practices. It should be possible to train an AI using material exclusively from artists who agree to this and are fairly compensated. What’s the point if those models exist in theory only, I hear you say. Well, they do exist. I'm not a big fan of Adobe, but they handle it better with Firefly. Then there's also Bria AI. No, we don't need to exploit artists for generative AI. P.S. This text was lovingly written by a humble non-native speaker, corrected by AI, and then all the em dashes were removed manually to obscure the fact that AI was involved. 🤓