Raw LLM Responses

@timcrnkovich4326  What valid argument is made in this video? If the data collection is "illegal," then he, or you, can take it to the courts He'll lose You will lose He already killed his case in this video when he said, several times, that he SHARED his art online. He shared it. Willingly. The entirety of fair use law is against him. Furthermore, if he reads the user agreements of all the providers, storage spaces, and websites where he shared images, etc. he will find that he will have agreed to rights sharing, as well as to the collection of a host of other data, whether directly provided or otherwise derived from the use of those resources. That is literally a part of the business model of every "free" platform on the internet. And that concept is neatly contained in, and understood by the general public by the common use of the term "sharing" when speaking of any form of information posted online. He further supports the case FOR how AI uses art when comparing it to human use, where he states that what differentiates the two is that he can "see a human touch" when a human does the work. He describes the process as the same, but says the machine lacks human touch, or the human quality of "inspiration." It's a ridiculous argument. Perhaps he'd like to show us where copyright or IP law has any legal regard, or a definition for "seeing a human touch." Spoiler; computers, and AI software, are created BY HUMANS. They exist because of human touch. Human ARTISTS created those. He then goes on to reinforce my point; COMPENSATION is always the issue behind the supposed moral outrage