Raw LLM Responses

​​​​​@canimanamino2433 Two things here. First, you've just described competition. That's how markets work. If someone releases a cheaper product, then some people will buy it while others will spend more because there's a general perception that "expensive" = "quality." This is standard microecononics supply and demand with utility functions, risk aversion, demand, and supply. In this sense, AI art would take a market share from those who value the piece and the price more than the creation process or the quality, and the net value generated across all consumers increases even if the market share for original artists decreases. Art in general becomes a bigger industry, because some potential customers now buy art due to the cheaper price. Original artists reposition, and market their "originality" (this is where AI art can be destructive, if it reproduces 1:1) rather than their art per se. Secondly, the assumption that everyone will turn to AI art if not opposed implies that you do not truly believe that art is a "passion industry." If it was a passion industry, people would simply not buy AI art due to the lack of passion, and it would not occupy a market share. You also implicitly assume that AI art is "worse quality" but this is also a subjective analysis. In general it probably holds true for most people, but for those willing to buy AI art the quality isn't a big differential. At least not big enough to justify buying art at the non-AI price. If you want to make this about economic structure, then this is just a classic case of a technological shock reshaping a market, nothing more. You're just trying to smuggle in 2 normative claims: 1) Ned is not a "real" plumber. This is just gatekeeping. 2) The "exploited immigrants" analogy to AI training only works if you reject the notion that humans also learn art from copyrighted material. And the "quality collapse" argument is logically and empirically weak. In real markets low-cost solutions dominate low-stakes markets, and high-cost solutions dominate high-stakes niche markets. Think Fiverr logos vs professional firms, IKEA vs furniture stores, stock music vs composers, Canva vs graphic designers, and much much more. That whole reply just collapses to normative claims and my initial statement that "this threatens my livelihood" is not unique to artists and historically never pans out.