[daevout]

Yes it absolutely is, but imo less so than what GitHub Copilot and various image generation companies are doing. My theory is that if AI turns out to be as disruptive as the current hype suggests, the conflict between those who feed the AI vs. those who profit from it might be the next big social rift.

Artists are already in full rebellion against this, as they should be, being nearly eclipsed by AI, except when it comes to inventing new styles and hand-crafting samples for the models to train on. These, I assume, are either scraped off the web, or signed away in unfair ToS of various online publishing platforms.

Since the damage individually is small (they took some code from me without attribution, ok) but collectively enormous, in my opinion it the role of government to step in and soften the blow if necessary.

[themodelplumber]

> Artists are already in full rebellion against this,

Huh? No. Some artists are maybe?

> as they should be, being nearly eclipsed by AI

Not even close. It's like looking at the newest brand of clip art.

Non-artists don't (maybe can't) know that particular feeling, at least not with regard to being told you're angry about "what's supposed to look like art".

(Heck, artists have been told that with regard to other humans' art for centuries, for one)

Going even further, a lot of artists already know how to build on this new tech without ripping people off.

I used to teach college art classes and would have loved to integrate this topic into the curriculum. It'd be a great ongoing discussion, no matter the legal outcomes.