Sorry, this might be on me, but I don’t follow. I understood your first comment to point out that the author is not okay with AI consuming or processing his copyrighted works in any way, while also making use of software using code generated by AI (which was itself trained on copyrighted work, very possibly against the law and certainly against many of the contributors’ wishes) for his work. I thought you were painting that as plainly hypocritical, and I argued it wasn’t. Did I misunderstand you?
By his standards, as I understand them, AI should respect and preserve the copyright of the data it’s trained on. Since that is not the current practice, he doesn’t want AI training on his works or generating derivative art, and prefers to avoid AI-generated works in general (including software). I don’t see any discrepancy or hypocrisy in that, nor do I see how your ComfyUI example relates. A clarification would be much appreciated!
> he’s quite happy not to even discuss that and instead take the position that the maintainers said it’s fine.
Where does he take that position?