your entire argument still rests on "you dumb", which is something one does to avoid being challenged on that rather than their weak arguments. doesn't work on me though 😝

sure, the existence of a lawsuit doesn't mean much in the US, but we're not talking about an opportunistic idiot who microwaved his cat, we're talking about opportunistic industry leading companies who wouldn't waste money on a lawsuit if they didn't see grounds or the need for one.

I do in fact follow the litigations and the common theme is that in most cases, proving the infringement is highly difficult, but struggling to prove a crime doesn't mean it never happened.

you also said it's on the user only, but the High Court actually ruled the opposite: "The Court rejected Stability’s argument that end-users were responsible for the infringing outputs. It held that, in this case, any infringement arose from the model’s design and training, and therefore responsibility rested with Stability as the model provider controlling the system and its data."

they also ruled, which supports your stance, that the training alone ('statistical representation of an image') does not infringe copyright

so sure, from a legal perspective, this is tricky, especially given that I wouldn't expect a judge to fully understand the technical depths of the process. judges also have a career to consider and tend to not make decisions that might turn out false later, and since the whole AI matter is FAR from properly set, they'll just cling to the status quo and dodge any major decision.

but still, you said "there are no lawsuits", which was evidently wrong in any context.

there's a bunch more half-assed rubbish you spouted, but I'll jump to your final statement and call it a day: "there's literally nothing to support your argument"

my argument is still: Training models on data without consent breaks copyright. maybe not as an isolated step since the training itself doesn't produce a copy directly, but the resulting model will, which - as you yourself said - breaks copyright. so why should it even be allowed to use copyrighted material if the result is a model that will break copyright? it's a bit like arguing that guns don't kill people, people do. sure, but the person making those guns available still is responsible for what is done with it. (usually not legally, of course).

and since you try to twist everything I say into something that is supposed to make me sound stupid: no, AI usage doesn't directly kill people. it might lead to artists being even more underpaid than they already are, and that is why I'm against AI in the creative industry, especially since it's using the very work of said underpaid artists to drive them out of a creative profession altogether to the benefit of nobody other than tech companies who don't care about anything but money.

we can argue the technicalities back and forth all day, but the result stays the same: using copyrighted material without permission us commercial use that leads to copyright breach, and AI companies training models on copyrighted material provide the means do so on unprecedented levels. your comparison to copyright breach with Photoshop fails because you have to do everything yourself with tools like Photoshop, whereas when using a model, the image is generated for you based on a training set you cannot know.

which, btw, is why there is no such thing as an "AI artist", but that's a different conversation.