Every pro-AI image generation using the work of artists who didn't consent to having their work used like this argument I've seen either misunderstands how AI image generation works, or how artists learn and create, or places no value on the human life behind creative work, or assumes a utopian version of reality rather than the current, existing one where artists do need to actually sell their work to both live and continue to make it. All of it just makes me sad. It's a bleak way to view art.
@Ciaraioch I love (and use) the existing AI art tools (for non-commercial purposes, but still). I would be happy to use one trained on only public domain / out of copyright / explicitly permitted works. I hope we can get a good set of legal decisions on the various issues here (but it's entirely possible that we won't).
