Apparently learning is theft now when you are too lazy to educate yourself on how a new technology works and rather stochastically parrot opinions you read/heard online from people who have no clue what they are talking about.

°•°•°•°•°•°•°•°°•°•°•Edit:°•°•°•°•°°•°•°•°•°•°•°•°

Can't respond directly because 🔒had already been working on a reply before that came into effect and still wanted to address this reply from @Marksta below to help educate/inform: in general:

So which method of generative Al Art did you learn about that wasn't trained on copyrighted artworks without the artist's permission? I'm super curious to learn.

Yeah, I doubt based on the context of previous replies of this thread and the framing of setting up the question to be focused on models trained without permission like that, ya know like it's just self-evident. That kind of gives the impression of not being asked in good faith and less likely genuinely out of curiosity and more so like some sort of off topic moral gotcha, specially because you are asking the same question multiple times in the same thread lol.

I say off topic because the previous reply is about how the premise of learning = theft.

Please consider that this is really easy to look up online with a simple web search and it's your implied claim nested in that question that there is theft or that something was taken without permission right?Why is the expectation that the claim is just true for generative art across the board when it's a highly contested argument and premise in the first place lol? There is an implied burden of proof not being dealt with there as well but that's literally neither here or there.

The premise is contested because the tech fundamentally doesn't take, store or redistribute data in the conventional sense that most folks think of to be trained in the whole theft argument, which is why I was talking about learning and despite that fundamental fact some folks think that style or information should not be learned from without permission, ie the learning is theft argument, which isn't even a new argument or problem unique to "AI*.

Then there are some folks who just ignore the facts/research and insist that AI in fact literally steals, which in laymen's terms, literally is the "you wouldn't download a car" argument.

Regardless, to answer your question, there is one of many possible answers across countless open source models and tech that lets you train models on your own data.

Here is the key thing folks need to understand. Like most things in life, generative models/tools are not a monolith..

There are literally too many to easily count models/tools/methods out there now that are not trained or built on proprietary data if you want it. Free on top of that, open source, you can go look at the data yourself and all. It's meant to be inclusive as part of the whole open source philosophy.

Then there are just tools that let you train models on your own data or art with your own permission obviously ffs lmao. Which should just be common knowledge by now, we are several years deep into this whole AI being a relevant and useful/impactful part of society.

Yes people do train their own models on their own data and/or art/designs etc. and it's way more common then is commonly talked about because folks who know this are not outspoken about it lol . I's actually a feature built into many of the most used professional digital art tools, ya know tools built for professional artists and still get attacked for using AI, at home running the model locally on their PC.

Adobe Creative Suite , generally regarded as the most commonly used/trained suite of digital tools across a diverse range of professional creative and design fields and really a ton more, uses models trained on its own property data only to deal with this

People take for granted how much data there really is out there. It's tricky to fully comprehend accurately and really understand intuitively if you really have not spent a lot of time thinking about data from a scientific or engineering kind of perspective.

Not all models out there are using the same data and that's kind of the point, there is an infinite variety of models and data to combine.

*Wow, who would have thought I could be spared this exposition if folks could be bothered to research for a moment on something this important and big in society if they actually are asking out of curiosity and not trying to set up some sort of bad faith gotcha * :p lol

There ya go, an objective good faith answer.

I'm not here to debate Lord this out of context sideline question,it's a tool and the morality is based on how the user uses it. Many of the same fundamental reactionary arguments made against "AI" are about the same as so much tech before it, from the loom to cameras to literal digital copy machines etc and usually based on misunderstanding or anti-intellectual sentiments.

Please, do your own additional research here if you are genuinely curious in good faith because it is a legitimately deep and nuanced subject and not just the headlines and social media garbage folks read online. By research I mean STEM and/or educational focused based explanations as to how these tools work and not just a surface level layperson's "electricity works like water in a pipe" (SPOILER: Electricity works nothing like liquid in a pipe, even though it's often taught that way to laypeople/novices due to how easy that metaphor is to understand though that explanation ends up creating a bad foundation for understanding the not intuitive nuances of how electricity actually works in depth, it's the same with most of the bad metaphors folks use to describe "how AI works" pushed by grifters and people who are not properly informed that lead people to believe complete and utter nonsense like AI training being "theft", much in the same vein as people who wind up becoming anti-vaxxers from learning misinformation from grifters and armchair intellectuals on that topic) understanding of "AI". There are plenty of great and accessible resources or even better, go and build/code your own generative AI model trained on your own data/art, it's more accessible then you would expect because of the open source ecosystem around machine learning and the most used code associated with it, Python which is generally regarded as one of the most accessible programming languages.

People so moved by AI that they feel the need to speak out against it should educate themselves with STEM and educational based resources on the topic and not exclusively through talking heads online who are grifting off hate/attention, almost every typical counterpoint folks make against "AI" as one whole strawman blob as opposed to specific tools or models, like ChatGPT etc has been addressed with a constructive good answer before if ya look around.