[teakettle42]

Your entire point hinges on a false assumption; “training” a human artist (or programmer) is the same as training an AI model.

It is not.

The AI model can only regurgitate stolen mash-ups of other people’s work.

Everything it produces is trivially derivative of the work it has consumed.

Where it succeeds, it succeeds because it successfully correlated stolen human-written descriptions to stolen human-produced images.

Where it fails, it does so because it cannot understand what it’s regurgitating, and it regurgitates the wrong stolen images for the given prompt.

AI models are incapable of producing anything but purely derivative stolen works, and the (often unwillingly) contributors to their training dataset should be entitled to copyright protections that extend to the derivative works.

That’s true whether we’re discussing dall-e or GitHub copilot.

[luckylion]

> The AI model can only regurgitate stolen mash-ups of other people’s work.

We all stand on the shoulders of giants. If you're very dismissive, I think it's easy to say the same about most artists. They're not genre-redefining, they carve out their niche that works (read: sells) for them.