Because it mean the product you are getting is just someone else’s stolen work. Courts have said lots of things are legal that are unethical. When you ask an AI to make art it just is stealing that from other people’s art
No, as I said courts have been ruling the opposite. The act of training an AI is fair use. There have been cases where other acts of copyright violation may have occurred before getting to that step (for example, the download of pirated ebooks by Meta has been alleged and is going to trial) but the training itself is not a copyright violation.
You can argue about ethics separately but if you’re going to invoke copyright then that’s a question of law, not ethics.
AI tools can be trained and run locally by individuals, not just by corporations.
Does an AI exist that uses no copyrighted products for its training?
Does that matter? There have been several major court cases at this point that have established that training an AI is fair use.
Because it mean the product you are getting is just someone else’s stolen work. Courts have said lots of things are legal that are unethical. When you ask an AI to make art it just is stealing that from other people’s art
No, as I said courts have been ruling the opposite. The act of training an AI is fair use. There have been cases where other acts of copyright violation may have occurred before getting to that step (for example, the download of pirated ebooks by Meta has been alleged and is going to trial) but the training itself is not a copyright violation.
You can argue about ethics separately but if you’re going to invoke copyright then that’s a question of law, not ethics.