Isn’t the problem that already to train these AI engines, pirating of copyrighted already happens.
So in a sense you couldn’t copyright already copyrighted work. It’s already been stolen.
This is not the same as a human referencing other works of art, imitating a style or deriving new work.
AI is literally copy pasting and blending pixels between other artists in a very opaque fashion. Such that no credits can be attributed to the origin artist.
Is that not important?
If an artist, on their own, trained an AI on their own work, and used that AI to generate more art based on what they’ve already produced, essentially they’ve externalised a part of their process so that they can make their decisions on other aspects (a calculator, but for art). Okay, cool.
If someone else does it without consent, it’s theft.
Unlike maths, art is not universal and free.
Free, not in the capitalism sense, but in the sense that art requires a human to begin with. You cannot freely access the thoughts, feelings, the context in which an art has been made without simply reducing it to the fact you can reduce anything down to binary data.
And if you don’t value the root of the art, what are the values of the art (non capitalistic value)?
Who is using AI engine and for what? I have yet to see a legitimate application.
Machine learning to improve accuracy of spotting cancer cells, yes. Machine learning into find patterns in enormous data sets, yes.
Machine learning to copy all of the art ever from everywhere, go nuts, don’t think about the possible damage/ harm, go nuts…