Any for profit usage of unlicensed works for an AI image dataset will have to paid for eventually.<p>Maybe not soon since Silicon Valley will convince people (maybe legislators) that this is all “magic” and that somehow a for profit AÍ has the same rights to remixing as a human.<p>But it’s not a situation that can be maintained. This AÍ responds to queries about artstation, which means it must’ve used art from artstation for it’s dataset. How is this legal? Do I lose my right to claim my art as proprietary data because it’s been posted on a art sharing website?<p>If this is allowed it leads only to one conclusion - any output that can be mapped to an ML construct will be mapped, and all human output will be fed into it so it converts the knowledge of X million humans into profit for 30 AI engineers. The idea of this is absurd and almost sickening to me. You will essentially make all human output that can be mapped to an ML construct into compost for sole profit of a few thousand or a few million AI engineers.<p>Plus if people don’t get compensation for their output, how do you expect them to continue?