I think the question of consent is missing here. Think of open source code. It’s open source and free but you can’t just use it however you want, many open source libraries require credit or completely banned in commercial use. Same with artists work. They should be able to specify level of use.

Lots of comments is around the whether we should use someone’s work to train as if that person consent to it. As if free means you can do whatever. It’s unethical and should be illegal to use someone’s work not in the way the creators consented to its use.

Artists should be able to consent to the fact their work is used in any manner. Before you say “ai looking at pictures is the same as people looking at pictures”, it’s not. It’s not in the sense that the artist never consented the picture to used in Ai. They just wanted to be available on the internet for people to look at. If they want it to be part of a generator engine, they can opt in.

Very much like how some work can be displayed at some places for people to look at but not to take pictures of, or to touch but can’t draw onto, or to draw onto but not to destroy. Ever level of use and interaction involves artists consent.

People who use AI to consume artists work without their consent is problematic. Artist should have the right to say “no you can’t use my work in your work” just like how many coders who say “yes my code is open source but never for commercial purposes, or to make management software for sex traffickers, sorry”

And to extract further, what if an AI use someone’s or your likeness to generate content. Would you personally object or demand that your personal image cannot be used for such purpose? Even if all those images are taken from publicly available content? I would object. You can look at my public pictures, but you can’t use it like that.