[delichon]

> Built on a foundation of theft

Theft here means that AI learns from our content and benefits from it when generating new content. I'm not clear on why this is theft when an artificial intelligence does it but it is not when a natural one does. These guesses are an effort to understand this:

  1. It's a matter of scale, AI does it faster and cheaper, and that quantitative difference is qualitatively different, and therefore morally different.
  2. When my enemies learn from me it is theft, regardless of the physiology of their intelligence, and AI is an enemy.
  3. A human intelligence requires far more friction to transmit what they learn, making their learning functionally more local, and less likely to be used to supplant me. When my content is used to supplant me it becomes theft, as in copyright infringement.
  4. ???

[cosiiine]

As an artist the frustrating thing is I was never asked about whether two decades of my work could be used by for-profit companies to create tools that make my market harder.

[derekp7]

The courts have ruled in several cases that a work someone created was too close to another work and therefor infringing. If you are looking at someone's painting or photograph, and then paint your version of that subject based on what you are looking at, you then have created a derived work which may infringe.

[dmonitor]

Watching a movie and "recording it" with my brain is legal, and remembering scenes + dialogue is legal, but recording it with a camcorder and watching it whenever isn't.

When the artist gave you the work, it was under the pretense that you wouldn't train a robot to recreate those images. Humans are divine beings. Deal with it.