[handoflixue]

Human artists have been training on the same content for decades and no one seemed to complain. You can argue that machines should be held to a different set of legal and ethical standards, but it's certainly not obvious.

Most factories are designed based on vast amounts of prior manual labor, so it's not like "automating a manual process based on analyzing existing methods" is new, either. Why is it okay to automate the knowledge of all those other craftsmen, but not that of painters?

[xigoi]

Human artists are not robotically ingesting terabytes of content.

[LegitShady]

AI are not human artists, so there's no connection to your point and the discussion.

[lesser_value]

you are just making shit up to suit your narrative at this point.

[LegitShady]

So ai are human artists?

[firebat45]

You could just as easily claim that since AI are not human artists that copyright does not apply to them.

[LegitShady]

It applies to whoever uses them as a tool. If you say copyright doesn't apply to a photocopier because it isn't human that doesn't mean it suddenly doesn't apply to you. It's just a bad argument.