I'm not thinking from the current definitions of right and compensation structures and I'm not calculating fees here. What I say is that if you build your thing on top of other people's work and put them out of business this needs to be addressed because you will cause huge problems to the people who made your machine possible in first place and you will dry up your source of "inspiration" because you will no longer have people making living of it.
Previously, someone was being paid to produce something.
Now, they are no longer being paid and the business can get the same thing “for free”.
You can argue the same issue about out sourcing programmers to south east Asia.
Is it good or bad?
“…but how do we compensate the programmers who lost their jobs?”
It’s just economics right?
…but saying that doesn’t address the social issues that this technology is creating.
People. Out of jobs.
Bluntly, that’s what it boils down to.
Are you ok being replaced by a $0.02 / hour dude from Thailand? By a $0.001 / hour AI?
You think, maybe, it’s fair for the people being replaced to feel a bit upset about it?
I do.
> You think, maybe, it’s fair for the people being replaced to feel a bit upset about it?
I think it makes all sorts of sense that people are upset about stable diffusion.
And, people being upset isn't a good reason to change the law or outlaw the new technology.
Today the word "luddite" is a slur. But luddites were real people who made the same argument you're making. In their case, they were a secret group of textile workers so upset by the introduction of the mechanical loom that they went around sabotaging equipment.
Suppose we wound the clock back and the luddites won a legal battle and successfully outlawed the mechanical loom in the UK. Knowing what we know now, would you support a law like that to protect the jobs of textile workers in the 19th century? I sure wouldn't - it would have decimated the economy of the UK and stunted innovation.
Thats the danger of using the law to protect the status quo. Sometimes the status quo needs to change to make room for what comes next, regardless of how painful that change is.
The law doesn't exist to protect your business model.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite
We're at the verge of the second industrial revolution. I have no idea how it shakes out, but I don't think clinging desperately to the old ways of doing things will be a winning strategy in the long run.
The law shouldn't protect the status quo, it should protect human beings. Unfortunately, the law usually protects the wealthy first and only.
You are fundamentally not understanding the issue.
People don’t have an inherent right to be an artist just because they are an artist.
They can get upset, smash the machines in a Luddite frenzy or try to use the law to stifle competition but the simple fact is nobody owes them anything. Maybe they win a lawsuit or two but the AIs will just get trained on out of copyright work and art styles (for those who now pay for graphic artists and whatnot) will change like they do every generation.
I, for one, look forward to an AI generated animated Matisse dancer selling me milk.