*sighs*
Please show me a *good* argument against AI art that isnt just telling us capitalism is bad (we know) or that you dont understand intellectual property or that it somehow isnt art (it is).
@Astrid
I don't know of a good argument against AI art tools in general; I don't think that gatekeeping around what "really counts as art", is a particularly good use of anyone's time.
There is an argument that at the moment the major AI art tools were created by making unauthorized use of a whole bunch of works by living artists, and those artists ought to be made whole, so to speak, either by the legal system, or by some sort of out of court settlement.
I don't know exactly where I stand on that, and obviously it doesn't worry me so much that I've avoided using Midjourney (25,000 Club any day now!).
But I would like to see that argument at least have its day in court.
I wrote a little bit about it over on writefreely: https://paper.wf/ceoln/ai-art-tools-the-way-s-forward
@Astrid
Sure, that makes perfect sense as a general principle.
But in the specific case where a work was licensed for non-commercial use only, say, and then some company used it for a commercial use, it seems only fair that that doesn't just get ignored.
@ceoln Again this goes back to "i should own a style" which is an absurd thing to want to own, if this happened, Disney would own *all art forever* with enough time. Do you really want that? Legally and ethically we do not need an artists permission to learn from their work, we never have and hopefully never will.