It was a free 'game' that was little more than a tutorial 🤷‍♂️

This is definitely one of those situations imo where such responsibility falls squarely on parents and inviting the government to handle such a thing will create far more issues than it would resolve.

that's an entirely legal fair use

Yet what these companies are doing does not constitute 'fair use', period, no matter how much you want to argue otherwise.

It is illegal. As an artist, if another individual or company wants to use my work for their own commercial purposes in any way, even if just to 'analyze' (since the analysis is part of their private commercial product), they still need to pay for a license to do so. Otherwise it's an unauthorized use and theft. Copyright doesn't even play into it at that point, and would be a separate issue.

It's baffling to me seeing comments like this as if the 'AI' is some natural intelligence just hanging out going around reading books it's interested in for the hell of it.. No. These are software companies illegally using artists works (which we require licensing for commercial use) to develop a commercial, profit generating product. Whatever the potential outputs of the AI are is irrelevant when the sources used to train it were obtained illegally.

Movies are made for different reasons. Some are made for the 'art', but some are made simply for entertainment. Shitty B-movies are a whole genere about being so 'bad' they're fun, and that's they're purpose. Fast and Furious movies aren't being made for the art.

@Gutless2615 Of course individuals can train models on their own work, but if they train it on other artists work, that too is an unauthorized use.

Honestly whether AI outputs can be copyrighted is really a separate issue from what I am concerned about.. what matters in these cases is where/ how they obtained the inputs on which they trained the models. If a corporation or individual is using other artists works without authorization they are also committing theft, irrespective of any copyright infringement.

@Gutless2615 corperations stealing artists work to develop their for-profit software is NOT fair use.

@brimnac it's not a 'someone' though. The AI isn't an actual consciousness. It's a software company illegally using other artists work to develop their own commercial product. BIG DIFFERENCE.

Andy Hull from Manchester Orchestra

I'd like that too, the reality though is that she is the deciding vote on the judiciary committee right now and if she steps down the republicans will refuse to seat a replacement halting any confirmations.. So right now they feel like they have to Weekend at Bernies her in order to keep confirming judges. Politics sucks.

@RightHandOfIkaros If they are just painting for themselves to learn new techniques or styles, no. If they are purposely trying to copy it to sell or pass off as the original artist, yes. A for-profit corperation taking works that have not been authorized for commercial use in order to develop their for-profit software is indeed stealing.