[milkoolong]

Would the artwork be in its own category: AI Artwork? Otherwise, I find it hard to support an AI-Artist who machine generated artwork based on "stealing" and "feeding" it 100.000s of creations from traditional/digital artists. The potential to profit off of it in one form or another is un-ethical. AFAIK, nobody have the rights to use their artwork without permission. Artists' artwork is not under a MIT license nor is it for sale as a stock image.

It's flawed to think an artist referencing others to produce their original is the same as an AI-Artist stealing artwork to generate an original. Youtube, Facebook, TikTok reciprocates value to its customers in exchange for selling their data to advertisers.

What value are YOU, the AI-Artist, providing the artist for their data?

Note: I'm ignorant in this area. My views are based on personal conversations with how influencer artists' feel about this popular trend.

[kixpanganiban]

I'm genuinely curious why you think the AI "steals" art from artists. That train of thought seems to imply that any material generated by any machine learning process is "stolen" from the training data. Why do you think that's the case?

Speaking of data and profits, if I were a digital artist with the ability to hand-draw images, and I decided to draw a unique composition that follows say the art style of Anne Stokes, do you think it would be the case that I "stole" from Anne Stokes?

It's unclear to me why you point to the need of me, the AI-Artist, to deliver some obscure "value" back to the artists from whom training data was referenced. The only value I have the ability to deliver is to the AI model and its authors, other than perhaps propagating the art style or work of the authors of the art basis.