My bad, I suppose I should have gone further down my line of reasoning. I am well aware of the differences between what generative AI does and what human artists do.

Do you think artists should be allowed to categorize other artists work so that when they want inspiration on how to draw mouths, they can quickly look through and see a bunch of other artists mouths to get inspiration from? (So they can then draw their own mouths)

Should they be allowed to use AI to help them do this identification and categorization?

Should they be allowed to use AI to create new mouths based on the collection they have amassed so they can get inspiration from these never before seen mouths?

Does it make any difference if they have created this identifying/categorizing AI themself?

If they take this combination of AI that they created and these images that they collected, and the resulting AI inspiration mouths that they have produced, should they be allowed to alter them to suit the unique face that they are making? Or is the fact that they combined what people currently call “AI” with other people’s work enough to make it against the rules?

What if they made the AI and never plugged in anyone else’s mouths, should they be allowed to use that AI to make their work?

Where exactly is the line at that people should not be allowed to cross?

I know there are lots of questions here, I totally understand if you don’t have time or answers for them. I’m just kind of laying out why I see not nearly as clear of a line as some people/headlines would like to have everyone think there is.

Do you think that other artists should be allowed to look at your work that you post online and as a result they become a better artist because of it?

Very interesting take, I was mistakenly under the impression that you thought that AI derived artwork should be treated differently than something made by a human creator.

Is this because of your general anti-copyright stance, or is this specific to people selling things that some people think are likely to be used to make AI artwork? I mean, are you saying that anyone who makes anything should be allowed to sell what they make and anyone should be allowed to share it for free?

What I am getting at is that you said anything made by AI should be in the public domain, so should prompts that a person rights (100% on their own) be considered “AI art” because they are likely to be turned into AI art? Or do you just think there is nothing special about AI art and all of everyone’s work should be in the public domain?

It would be interesting if we end up with lawyers in court arguing over whether or not something would make a good enough AI art prompt to be it in or out of the public domain.

Fair enough. What’s your stance on this - should someone be allowed to create a text prompt and a list of settings for a specific model and then sell that data that they 100% created themself?

I haven’t heard anyone saying they think people should not be allowed their sell their own text creation like this, but if they are allowed to, then it means that anyone who wants to sell AI art just needs to sell the instructions for someone else to create the art themself. This could easily be set up as a file format that the purchaser then just has to run on their own. Seems like a waste of energy for everyone to generate their own copy of the work, but I can’t imagine any laws being set up that say people are not allowed to sell their own creations because the purchaser may plug what they created into an AI.

Should this be allowed or should the law extend to people not being allowed to sell text that may be used by someone else to create art?

Making all ai work public domain is a great idea… until you start trying to draft actual laws. If ai is only used to make the eyeballs of character is it public domain? If I use a stable diffusion base but then fine-tune it on my own work is it public domain? What if I use ai to make the general idea, then I use that as inspiration to make my own work? How does anyone prove that anything is or isn’t ai generated or assisted? The list goes on and on. Making laws about ai use in art simply isn’t realistic, they are just too hard to nail down, and too easy to skirt. I don’t know what the solution is, but it isn’t this unfortunately.

The other big problem with it is that it just means that few big companies who already own almost all the IP(yes, most professional artists don’t actually own their own work) just make their own models with their own work and are able to enjoy the benefits of AI while any small group just has yet another disadvantage. It will probably be these big companies pushing for anti-AI/“pro artist” laws.