They are wrong. Theft means depriving someone of having something, and that’s not the case here. It’s more a “they’re taking our jobs” kind of situation.
You forget all the images that “AI” models are trained on without consent or payment. Plus as you say, that training could result in the same artists losing work. Double theft, of IP and future income.
Important difference between you and an ML model: you can enjoy that art (YMMV), the ML never will.
There is a similar distinction between artists and galleries putting artwork to the public, and corporations auto-scraping billions of artwork for a statistical engine to mass produce qualitatively lesser versions.
I mean, they’re not wrong but … since they’re also hacking people their motives seem kind of mixed.
They are wrong. Theft means depriving someone of having something, and that’s not the case here. It’s more a “they’re taking our jobs” kind of situation.
You forget all the images that “AI” models are trained on without consent or payment. Plus as you say, that training could result in the same artists losing work. Double theft, of IP and future income.
I look at art without paying anyone, I guess I’m stealing.
Important difference between you and an ML model: you can enjoy that art (YMMV), the ML never will.
There is a similar distinction between artists and galleries putting artwork to the public, and corporations auto-scraping billions of artwork for a statistical engine to mass produce qualitatively lesser versions.
You should read this article by Kit Walsh, a senior staff attorney at the EFF, and this one by Cory Doctorow.
All artists train themselves on others artwork, most probably unpaid.
Wow. All artists throughout history just facedesked at that comment.
That’s what I’ve been saying! At most it’s piracy