If you haven't seen my own concerns about artist copyrights and recent AI image generating tools, please see this thread from a fellow #SciArt artist. He voices a lot of issues that I've expressed, but in another way.
https://twitter.com/FlyingTrilobite/status/1576619635734380547
It's not about using technology, it's about using the labor of highly skilled artists against their will. It is about techno-colonialism and how it takes without asking.
And these AI tools aren't the first time we've encountered these issues. Scientists, and just about anyone putting together a slide deck, has 'lifted' art for decades.
Do read Glendon's thread. He's done a very good job of explaining the issues.
@kristinHenry i don't think i understand the "consent" argument.
tl;dr: to me, AI-generated X doesn't look fundamentally different from third-party human-generated X with influence from many artists
what it comes down to for me is how are you harmed by this thing-- how specific artists are being harmed by these things. even if your dall-e or your midjourney takes prompts in the form, "... in the style of Kristin Henry" it's not able to give me the real thing since *you* making it is part of the real thing--so, it's a different product and I don't go to the AI if i want you.
OTOH, if it's getting a filler image for my slide show or news article where i want "something like Kristin Henry", but I don't want to license from you and also don't want to risk adverse legal action for copyright infringement, then maybe I skirt the issue with the AI generated image. then, the problem is how does that AI product differ from a third-party human artist's work product where this third party is really good at matching style, but maybe works for way less than you do. I still see it as a difference in degree rather than kind and don't see the human generated work there as a problem unless there's fraud or impersonation involved.
