You're not exactly communicating in good faith here, given that I addressed exactly this:

> The fine tune process represents additional training, and to reliably and consistent reproduce a consistent style generally requires overfitting ...

It's clear you have a perspective that is set in stone, and insist on not understanding the technology. Hopefully you'll re-evaluate when the plaintiffs in these suits inevitably lose.

No, I don’t care about the lawsuit because the intent with releasing SD was to get sued and then lock in a monopoly based on big players being the only ones capable of rights enforcement. See my other comment.

> I don’t really care about the copyright argument as it relates to human learning because I think this is all a Napster-style false flag by capital owners to enclose ALL data on the internet. The intent isn’t to argue about these models from first principles such that we all have IP-restriction free access from them. It’s to make them do enough legally gray things at scale that they get restricted to only a few power players.