[Woovie]

I understand some their complaints, others seem like typical support questions. It's inevitable and regardless of making money, it's going to happen. People suck at reading.

But, I can't look past the AI art used to generate the YouTube thumbnail on the main page. I'm sure some artist wishes they could work on an art full time, and still be able to pay their bills just as you say you wish about your software.

No one wants to pay for anything, including you.

[Reviving1514]

Do you feel they would have paid someone to make the thumbnail if they didn't AI generate it or would we just have had a thumbnail that's less interesting?

[DopplerSmell]

Weird take... AI art is cheap or free, but that doesn't mean anything at all in relation to how you treat the person providing the service.

You have failed to understand that the value of the service is fundamentally different, providing open source software costs a human effort.

Providing art no longer requires the same amount of human effort, if AI is acceptable, so it's not at all comparable.

[zogrodea]

What would you say to someone who responds that AI art only exists because of training data stolen from unpaid artists?

[DopplerSmell]

That it's an emotional reaction to someone using easily available material to train a program rather than themselves.

I always saw it as a technological consequence of allowing people to view their work; training a model is no different to an individual looking at it.