>>57287471This retard doesn't understand how intellectual property law works and particularly with regards to art.
Looking at another human's artwork isn't theft and neither is outright copying it if it's only to practice, but if you trace another artist's work or attempt to create a direct replica without permission or credit then the art community would always shit down your throat for doing that.
Fair use has also always, legally and explicitly, been contingent on the products that infringe on copyright protections disrupting the market for the original product which AI does and copycats generally do not.
Beyond that the process of an AI learning is fundamentally different to the process of a human learning. A human builds up a library of abstractions which can be layered or removed to create art. If you ask a human to explain aspects of their drawing, they'll be able to tell you about colour theory or foreshortening or any other technique they use to create a presentation. Where those abstractions exist for an AI they're completely opaque and only exist because they're represented in the training dataset.
These models don't understand what foreshortening is, they rely on training datasets being high quality enough that that abstraction comes for free.
It's not capable of producing some new kind of insight. It's not capable of contributing back to the wider understanding of art. It's not capable of identifying what makes a given piece of art good or bad. It's not capable of creating a new or distinct style and when you push it to somewhere that the input dataset was sparse it steals so shamelessly that it even copies the signatures of the artists it steals from.
