I get where you're coming from, but I don't think even more private property is the answer here. This is ultimately a question of economics - we don't like that a) we're being put out of jobs, and b) it's being done without our consent / anything in return. These are problems that we can address without throwing even more monopolosation power into the equation, which is what IP is all about - giving artists a monopoly over their own content, which mostly benefits large media corporations, not independent artists.

I'd much rather we tackled the problem of automation taking our jobs in a more heads on manner via something like UBI or negative income taxes, rather than a one-off solution like even more copyright that only really serves to slow this inevitability down. You can regulate AI in as many ways as you want, but that's adding a ton of meaningless friction to getting stuff done (e.g. you'd have to prove your art wasn't made by AI somehow) when the much easier and more effective solution is something like UBI.

The consent question is something that needs a bit more of a radical solution - like democratising work, something that Finland has done to their grocery stores, the biggest grocery chains are democratically owned and run by the members (consumer coops). We'll probably get to something like that on a large scale... eventually - but I think it's probably a bigger hurdle than UBI. Then you'd be able to vote on what ways an organisation operates, including if or how it builds AI data sets.

I hope to one day live in a world where people only do things for the skill/experience/craft, instead of out of necessity.

For point 2 and 3 art is too expensive and time consuming to learn. I feel a lot of people extremely underestimate the time and cost that people have to bring up to become decent artists.

Expanding on the already expansive terms of copyright is not the appropriate way to deal with the externalities of AI. This copyright maximalists approach will hurt small artists, remix culture, drive up business costs for artists who will be dragged into court to prove their workflows didn’t involve any generative steps, and as with every expansion of copyright, primarily help the large already centralized corporate IP holders to further cement their position.

Expanding the terms of copyright to 70 years after the life of the author actually didn’t help artists make art. Expanding copyright to cover “training” will result in more costly litigation, make things harder for small artists and creators, and further centralize the corporate IP hoarders that can afford to shoulder the increased costs of doing business. There are inumerable content creators that could and will make use of generative art to make content and they should be allowed to prosper. We need more fair use, not less.

That's not true? There's nothing stopping content creators from using their own content to create models. In fact, that's my exact project for some of my visual art.

Moreover (edit: visual) models can't effectively replicate the copywrite, so I don't really see how it would infringe on it.

AI has no personal agency, lived experiences, or independent creative input.
Humans don't have the ability to synthesize thousands of pages of text in a matter of minutes.

Any analogy toward human learning or behavior is shallow and flawed.

The problem is that the AI can print the book word for word if you ask the right questions and at that point it's breaking copyright again but that's not a problem with the learning part but with how AI has no concept of understanding context at all

Can it tell you what it learned, or does it copy billions of conversations online of what other people learned?

If it can't interpret, it's not learning.

All you get is the most basic form of data retention, if it retained millions of examples.

@brimnac it's not a 'someone' though. The AI isn't an actual consciousness. It's a software company illegally using other artists work to develop their own commercial product. BIG DIFFERENCE.

Does AI also have eyeballs and brain tissues? Do they have conscience, sentience, shame?

You do realize individuals can train neural networks on their own hardware, right? Generative art and generative text is not something owned by corporations — and in fact what is optimistically becoming apparent is that it is specifically difficult to build moats around a generative model, meaning that it’s especially hard for for corporations to own this technology outright — but those corporations are the only ones that benefit from expanding copyright. Also, I disagree with you also. A trained model is a transformative work, as are the works you can generate with those models. Applying the four factor fair use test comes out heavily on the side of fair use.

It isn’t, and that wasn’t what the monkey selfie lawsuit was about. The monkey selfie lawsuit in fact supports the idea that generative art can be protected, if it demonstrates a manifestation of an artists specific intent. The monkey selfie wasn’t copyrightable not because a monkey isn’t a human; but because the monkey didn’t know wtf it was doing when it took a selfie.