>>35047215It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.
You don't want AI to have access to your art at all? Don't put it online, but then no one knows it even exists.
You don't want AI to have easy access to your art for training? Don't tag it but then watch it get maybe ten likes because no one can find it. And in the small chance it blows up someone will retweet it and add tags anyway, or feed it in manually.
You want people to see your art but not have it be good training material for the AI? Put out a low quality version like a slanted photograph of your art on a tabletop, then watch AI art drown out your post because the masses think it looks better and can actually be used for wallpaper.
Artists need to realize this is an overwhelming inevitability. No amount of legal protection is going to help you when the very mechanism that allows any artist to let their art reach thousands without a patron today is the same thing that allows AI to effortlessly grab it. And don't forget the only reason people even know whose art it's using is because devs outright told people what dataset they were training on.
Many companies today already copy open source code wholesale which are all technically protected by licenses and simply don't tell anyone unless it comes out in court in some unrelated case. It will simply be the same thing for art, except it's much more difficult to figure out since it's not in black and white with the exact same algorithms and decision paths.
