[throwaway421967]

If I see a photo online, I don't need to pay a license to see it, for my brain to process it.

If after I produce the same image, then yes you could argue I'm an infringing but only when I do actually produce it.

This push for licensing works for the purposes of tranining is not german to the purposes that copyright sets to achieve. It slows down progress, makes it extremely more expensive for small players to partcipate. AI tools enable way more creative expression, than the rent seeking done by descendants of authros dead for over 50 years.

[__loam]

Germane. And this is still a disengenuous argument wherever someone is making it. We should not defend corporate exploitation of millions of people by citing how human beings do things. Making it harder for artists to make a living by beating them over the head with their own work does not "enable way more creative expression". Writing a prompt hardly counts as "creative".

[throwaway421967]

Thanks for the correction, I believe the correct one is "germane" though,no?

> Writing a prompt hardly counts as "creative".

clicking a camera shutter is not creative either. Choosing the subject and which picture is worth preserving is.

[__loam]

I am a douche for correcting you with the wrong word.

I don't like the camera comparison because cameras don't require other content to function.

[idiotsecant]

What about open models that don't benefit a corporation?

[__loam]

Open models exist because silicon valley corporations with massive VC funding or institutional capital like Meta and Google stole millions of works from across the internet. Abusing the reputation of open source software does not mean you had permission to use that art in your model, and it doesn't wash away the ethical stain on these models.

[timeon]

> If I see a photo online, I don't need to pay a license to see it, for my brain to process it.

What makes this sentence relevant here?