It's usually many different art sources combined together. I do think that it's best to support human artists, but human artists also learn by seeing other people's artwork.
That's like comparing a tiny ant carrying a small, minuscule piece of food to a grown aurochs bull carrying whole carriage. I've seen this argument before and honestly it's ''technically'' the same but the scales of the two comparisons are like havean and earth.
Listen, when a artist references something, they still leave their own ''fingerprint'', like their own style, their flaws, that's how so many different artstyles were created in the first place, that's how art is so diverse.
And sure they use one, two maybe even three inspiration sources at most.
Ai on the other hand ? It's algorithm has been fed MILLIONS of artworks, and it mashes them together to fit a bunch of keywords, but doesn't ultimately add anything new, that's why they all looks the same.
These companies took without any permission millions of artworks.
From the beginning of the internet, artists have been posted their work online, thinking they would share it with the world, it would inspire others, make a career out of something their passionate about.
Imagine the hours, years, of their life people spent to create all the art that's been posted on the internet in the last few decade or so, all of would ultimately end up being their downfall, because some companies came along and used them to ultimately make their art and themselves obsolete.
And the consumers ? We don't care, nobody cares. When autonomation was coming for the jobs of factory workers what did everyone think ? ''Oh that's just the way the cloak spins, those low wage workers should get a new job or a better education''.
Now it's artists, voice actors. Ai can even have better answers than doctors.
It's scary and dangerous and all consumers think about it's their own comfort it brings, until they themselves are on the chopping block.
