I worry that #AI is leading otherwise progressive people to argue against their own principles. Many of the same people that I previously knew to argue against strict Intellectual Property laws are suddenly demanding the expansion of IP protections because of AI. People that I thought would embrace broadly permissive fair use are now arguing against it under the pretense of fighting "art theft".
I'm won't fall for it. I hope Generative AI helps to invalidate IP laws and expand fair use.
I also agree that copyright law, as currently interpreted, does not support the copyrighting of AI art. I enjoy playing around with Stable Diffusion, and I would say that I have gotten pretty good at it, but I don't take ownership of the images that I generate, and I don't believe that I should be allowed to legally claim ownership over something that wasn't actually created by me.
But I still find the technology impressive and useful.
But, again, I don't fall for the "All AI art is art theft" argument, because it just doesn't make sense.
If I type "a moonlit beach, painting by [living artist]", It could be argued as infringing on that artist, but If I just type "a moonlight beach, oil painting", who does it infringe on? Every artist the model was trained on?
If a work infringes on every artist at once, it's safe to say that it doesn't infringe on any artist at all.
@greycat I don't think that comparing intellectual property rights to financial securities is a great argument coming from someone who identifies as a communist. Marx was pretty clear about the risk of exchange value superceding use value (commodification).
In your comparison, "stealing from every bank" = "borrowing from every artist". While the former could represent systemic theft or fraud, the latter, IMHO, clearly represents fair use.
@Alex@vran.as "If I steal from every bank at once, I haven't committed a crime"