[ShrigmaMale]

can you explain why you think obsoleting the majority of commercial artists will "throw a wrench in our entire economy"? since you're addressing copyright law i'm assuming that's all you're addressing. this sounds like a very small number of people. for the economy as a whole, bringing down the cost of art is probably a positive.

i understand the arguments about artistic value, but those are quite separate from yours.

[cush]

> artists… a small number of people

The vast majority of artists are working professionals doing the art grunt work, so it’s many more than you’d think (Millions) - not just those working for film/media/galleries. That said, these models won’t only replace artists. They can be trained to do most anything - jobs in marketing, legal, journalism, healthcare, software, etc are all at risk

[ShrigmaMale]

right, this is why i'm specifically questioning your assertion on copyright law. you weren't talking about ai displacing jobs generally, just copyright law - which doesn't protect jobs in marketing, legal, journalism, healthcare, and probably not software. i don't understand why you believe that "if copyright law doesn't take a massive leap forward in the next year" this sort of thing will happen.

[cush]

I see what you’re saying. What kind of law or regulation would cover the rehashing of original content then? Isn’t that copyright law? It’s my understanding that published works in these fields would be covered by copyright law.