How did you train your AI? Did you use ethically acquired data sources?
If after I produce the same image, then yes you could argue I'm an infringing but only when I do actually produce it.
This push for licensing works for the purposes of tranining is not german to the purposes that copyright sets to achieve. It slows down progress, makes it extremely more expensive for small players to partcipate. AI tools enable way more creative expression, than the rent seeking done by descendants of authros dead for over 50 years.
> Writing a prompt hardly counts as "creative".
clicking a camera shutter is not creative either. Choosing the subject and which picture is worth preserving is.
I don't like the camera comparison because cameras don't require other content to function.
What makes this sentence relevant here?
I see a lot of this knee jerk generative algorithm bad on twitter, reddit, and spaces like that. Hopefully HN can be more nuanced.
Information wants to be free. That doesn't stop being true when the information is art.
Obviously your bullshit point about artists learning to be artists is bullshit. AI art models are not people. Bringing up how people learn is completely irrelevant to the regulation of these models. Artists are happy to teach other artists because it actually grows the artistic community and maintains the skills humanity needs to produce art. Obviously they feel differently when some corporate tech bro fuck who isn't part of the community extracts the value from millions of people at an industrial scale to produce a computer program to displace them and threaten their livelihoods. This is easy to understand and no amount of handwringing and anthropomorphizing will change these facts.
When we don't live under a capitalist economy, maybe we can talk about your entitlement to other people's work. Until then, professional creatives need to eat and pay rent, so fuck off.