Even if that's true (which it isn't), it doesn't matter. It's absolutely logically consistent to allow humans to do it while forbidding AI to do it.
Why would you, though? If art is for the sake of art, then all art is valuable regardless of origin. If art is for the sake of providing human employment, AI being better in no way stops performative make-work from existing. If art is for the sake of copyright trolls to troll harder, then fuck art, feed it to the AI!
Your "logic" for making AI art illegal is basically "don't like it". Your personal and subjective opinion is that it's not art by definition.. This is like refusing to eat artificially grown meat because you have some strange idea about what food "should" be. Even if the meat was made MORE delicious you would still claim it wasn't food and turn it away. There's no logical consistency to your position, it's purely reactionary.
All this boils down to a simple fact that egos like to think of themselves (and of artistic interaction) much more than there actually is.
I remember a story when a literature teacher insisted on a definite symbolism of some minor detail in a novel. People contacted the author about it and he said no, there is nothing behind it. It was just a filler without any second thought. Makes you think how much symbolism is far-fetched in classics, where you cannot simply email an author.
What is not logically consistent is to claim that a black box utilizing statistical relationships between pixels in a giant dataset is an "artist" and that its products create "value".
The compiler is not a programmer, AI can never be an artist.
Step 1: Tweak settings and type text
Step 2: Look at the result
Step 3: If you like the result, go to step 4, otherwise go back to step 1.
Step 4: Save and share the result
Feels like art to me. Ultimately it's still a human using a tool to create art. For me AI art is just the name of the art style.
- It appears people can train AIs from scratch or at least fine-tune them at home.
- Even if your art isn’t in “the training set”, that does not prevent the AI from learning its style. (Someone can decode it to CLIP embeddings. It could have a really good text model trained on vivid art museum descriptions of your art.)
- The ability of an image model to generate your art means it could also be trained in reverse to recognize it, producing a caption model, which would give vision to the blind. And surely you’d feel bad about that.
You can also require cloud providers to enforce a ban on training (and deploying) such models, it's doable. Good luck training it in your basement, it will probably take you a decade.
If this is banned, it will become a lot like piracy - yes, it's available, no, most people (at least in the West) don't do it, practically no businesses do it.
Either use a CC0 set like Wikimedia/Flickr and throw in some dead artists like Brueghel, or train on data from a country we don’t respect the IP of. Lots of Taobao product photos out there. It’s enough.
As of about a week ago this tech runs on consumer GPUs. The weights have been downloaded 100s of thousands of times, and fine-tuning / modifying is possible.
Training from scratch is about $500k still, but it will only get cheaper and easier.
But I would not be surprised if this was trainable on a commercial GPU at home within that time. But I think another important trend that we are seeing is that you don't need to train these models from scratch.
Open-source "foundation models" means that you can usually get away with the much easier task of fine-tuning, as to not throw away / re-learn everything that these large models have already fit.
Edit: I initially said 2-5 years, but on more reflection this does seem optimistic (for training from scratch).
I don't know enough about diffusion models but if LLMs (of current size) have to use only public domain, they will be undertrained and we will see significant degradation in performance. Not to mention that Codex will be effectively dead.