> The primary purpose of the commercially and publicly available generative AI is to undercut human labour.
As is the primary purpose of almost all technology, so not per se a bad thing.
> What it serves up is frequently too similar to the existing work that it was trained on, and therein lies the problem on every level, not just from copyright infringement, but one of consent.
What's the difference to google images then? If the problem is only that people get to see something similar to my work, then google iamges is just as bad. Well perhaps the difference for you is consent, in which case see above. But for me the difference was that OpenAI is trying to sell you rights for thise things that look similar to your works. So for me, if OpenAI just stopped trying to sell you rights for its generations, it would be copyright-okay.
> You approached it from the angle of copyright, but the problem is one of consent.
Fair enough, that is true. And consent is also an interesting topic to discuss. For me personally, with consent issues one has to think wheter one is talking about being ethical, or nice, or talking about legal action being necessary. I personally think that the consent issues with genAI are more in the "soft" side, compared to the copyright issues. With the latter it is a very pressing issue to find out how it should be treated legally.
As is the primary purpose of almost all technology, so not per se a bad thing.
> What it serves up is frequently too similar to the existing work that it was trained on, and therein lies the problem on every level, not just from copyright infringement, but one of consent.
What's the difference to google images then? If the problem is only that people get to see something similar to my work, then google iamges is just as bad. Well perhaps the difference for you is consent, in which case see above. But for me the difference was that OpenAI is trying to sell you rights for thise things that look similar to your works. So for me, if OpenAI just stopped trying to sell you rights for its generations, it would be copyright-okay.
> You approached it from the angle of copyright, but the problem is one of consent.
Fair enough, that is true. And consent is also an interesting topic to discuss. For me personally, with consent issues one has to think wheter one is talking about being ethical, or nice, or talking about legal action being necessary. I personally think that the consent issues with genAI are more in the "soft" side, compared to the copyright issues. With the latter it is a very pressing issue to find out how it should be treated legally.