> but having your IP ripped out of your own blog feels like being raped, by open-source software or not

That's most likely an irrational feeling. "Adobe AI" will most likely work just as well without including your IP in their dataset, and be able to output something in your style with the right prompt (and other knobs we'll see in the future) without ever having seen your IP.

Potentially you could even run some kind of CLIP on your image and then feed that into "Adobe AI". And I really see no reason to think something like that would ever be considered copyright infringement.

People have the idea that their IP is very meaningfully influencing these AIs, while in reality their artstyles aren't that unique.

first of all, it is pretty prepotent to deny someone else feelings straight out of the box. i am an artist and if someone would came with the same art-style i do on Blender with an industrial scale speed; with some text input that took 15 seconds to type and MY data is on it, it would feel like a rape.

and i do not think "i am too insignificant to make an impactful change in society" ... if everyone think(ed) like the quote, life probably would be worse?

I'm not denying your feelings. Just pointing out that your art being or not being in their dataset probably makes no difference.

How dare someone look at content you post publically!

If you don't want people to see and learn from your art, maybe don't make it public?

That's a disingenuous comment and you probably already know that.

Computers aren’t human. Software isn’t people.

Do you also hate Human Artists who trained by viewing copies of your artwork and incorporating elements of your style into theirs? Do you sue all Human Artists that create art vaguely similar to yours?

no because it's not done on an industrial scale

the purpose of producing art is for people to see it

not for some megacorp to ingest it on a huge scale to then make the entire concept of art redundant

So if a Human Artist did this on an "industrial scale" you would sue them for having similar a style, how do you think that lawsuit would turn out for you? You are actually mad at the moral implications of Capitalism and not the legality of AI art?

> So if a Human Artist did this on an "industrial scale" you would sue them for having similar a style, how do you think that lawsuit would turn out for you?

when it becomes a realistic possibility that a single human can ingest every work ever created, and then output a derived work in a second to thousands of people at a time: I'll let you know

I'm trying to point out the flaw in your argument not the real possibility of a human doing this. You have unrealistic expectations of AI art and such a lawsuit against a human would obviously not go in your favor. 5 seconds of google will tell you that Style is not copyright protected so your entire premise is flawed.

So, reading your comment, I can infer that the main problem is not the fact that the AI was trained on copyrighted data, but the fact that its performance outperforms that of a human artist.

no, that's just my rhetorical response to a stupid hypothetical argument

But the question was not so stupid as it underlines the actual problem of AI, the scale on which it operates, not the fact that a machine could learn similarly to a human. I found the question pretty clever.

Computers aren’t humans. Software isn’t a person. If you’re going to argue as if computers are now people and deserve having laws apply to them, think about the implications of you owning a human.

There's a parallel in policing: driving around and looking up plate numbers is perfectly fine in the opinion of some, but automating the same task by fixing cameras to police cars and using computer vision to do the task makes it qualitatively different. Scale can have an impact on the way tasks are viewed.