Raw LLM Responses

It so dumb that some AI proponents (The loudest ones, including most companies) clearly what it both ways. The AI generated images can not be copyright infringement because it "Inspired art" or is done by a machine. But had a human done it then they would get in to legal trouble. Yet, they also want the output from AI generation to be copyright protect. They want the training data for free, but also try to make money from what the AI output. I am not even against AI and would actually want to see a radical reform to copyright. But I think more that I want to actually want to see artist to be able to do the craft they like without need for copyright to ensure they can make a living. We do not live in that world. Society is geared towards viewing artist as content generation machines, and so these people view artist as a cog in a machine to be replaced. Not as people. I think any AI research worth their salt would not have any problem with people "contaminating" their art. If you're honest, you won't use a date set you had to harvest from the unwilling. If anything, as a research I would see it as a interesting challenge to make my AI better to at understanding data and what it means. (Though you should still ask before you use the "contaminated" of course.) That companies are against this practice just show they just want access to easy date to exploit and are not actually interested in research. Again, I am someone not against AI. I just think there should be ethics involved when you develop AI, like any human endeavour. And there have been those who have used AI that only train it on their on datasets they have themselves generated. PS: And yeah. Artist in general often say what inspired them, which AI model developers generally do not. I do. If I get a great idea from someone, I give them part of the credit.