zlacker

>>dredmo+(OP)
Surely, if the next Stable Diffusion had to be trained from a dataset that has been purged of images that were not under a permissive license, this would at most be a minor setback on AI's road to obsoleting painting that is more craft than art. Do artists not realise this (perhaps because they have some kind of conceit along the lines of "it only can produce good-looking images because it is rearranging pieces of some Real Artists' works it was trained on"), are they hoping to inspire overshoot legislation (perhaps something following the music industry model in several countries: AI-generated images assumed pirated until proven otherwise, with protection money to be paid to an artists' guild?), or is this just a desperate rearguard action?

>>4bpp+65
Imagine you are an artist and you have developed your unique style.

Would you mind if AI starts creating art like yours?

What if your clients tell you they bought the AI generated art instead of yours?

>>Tepix+N5
Would you mind if there was another person who copied your style? What if your clients...?

Yeah, sure you'd mind. However, we have decided as a society that "style" is not protected.

>>Feepin+K7
“We” decide on today’s issues, not on all future possibilities. The reason for that decision in the past was to allow many creators to create without being too held back by “private property” signs everywhere. The current situation allows AI to create but demotivates creators. Now it’s time to think what will we do when AI wouldn’t pick a new style and there are not enough creators anymore who can or want to do that, whether it is a near future problem or maybe not a problem at all, and what should we decide again.

Simply hiding in an obsolete technicality is sure a wrong way to handle it.