Bringing up Neuralink or medical use of LLMs is not an argument for allowing the theft. Anthropic etc. are free to start a prosthetics company and scrap their regular offerings.

You are then allowed to use AI with a prescription.

▲

sevenzero 2 hours ago | parent [-]

This. As an artist I wouldnt have an issue with AI if it wouldnt be just generative generating full, fleshed out pieces. If AI is used allowing actual artists to use a brush or pen again and actually allows them expressing themselves through their own work, it would be great.

People seem to think generating art from stolen pieces by typing 4 sentences in a prompt window is equal to this. It isn't. It is not true expression as it takes humanity out of the piece.

▲

apt-apt-apt-apt 2 hours ago | parent [-]

If a human can learn from existing art and information, how is that different from an AI learning on the same? Or replace AI with a new sentient being that is discovered.

What one does with the learning seems to be the issue. If a human exactly reproduced anothers' artwork, that'd be copying.

	▲	sevenzero 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yes and actual artists acknowledge copies. Art is a craft and if the copy is well made by actual human skill you can value it. AI artists act like printing out the Mona Lisa is their own art, skill and expression.