As for using existing art as references for new art, though, I'm sorry, Sc0ut - artists have been doing that forever. Art students throughout history have been encouraged to outright copy the old masters for centuries, and the masters (living or not) didn't receive any residual income when their work inspired other work. Copyright law is a slightly complex can of worms that I won't open right now, but I will say there is nothing illegal (that I know of) about viewing art and using it as material for new art. There's even some latitude for appropriating pieces of an artwork - like sampling music - and making new art with a mixture of the pieces.
I appreciate the good intentions, but as I said, I'm a graphic artist by profession, it's how I earn my living (I never was a designer or anything else, nor do I direct others, nor write prompts to get images... I just draw everything myself, always have). What makes you think I didn't know any of this? As you train in drawing/painting you'll inevitably make a few studies after masters, even if just out of curiosity. I've done it and I don't even have professional art training - you learn about the history of your craft if you care about it at all.
As for copyright law as it pertains to fair image use, I know slightly more about it than the average person from my couple of year stint as a Wikipedia admin for my native language Wikipedia, where I got very into adding images to articles and I tried hard to do make sure I do it right. I won't get into the nitty gritty of it unless someone asks but, as a general rule, getting artistic inspiration from copyrighted work is legal as long as you don't copy it too closely and extensively (when it comes to music this is why you can sample a few seconds of someone else's song but not more). Of course, there are going to be situations that fall into a gray area with visual art especially, where it's hard to quantify the amount of similarity. Thing is, I'm not a lawyer and I don't want to be. I wasn't talking about what is *legal* but what is *moral* - and from that perspective, I find it immensely cynical to create a tool that relies very, very directly on involuntary input from contemporary artists while at the same time attacking their livelihood. As Lenny said, there are thousands upon thousands of public domain artworks, many of them famous and beloved and critically acclaimed, but the AI developers didn't choose to rely on those exclusively, even if it's risk-free legally. Why? Because they want to be able to generate images that feel current and speak to the tastes of the majority of people nowadays. And you can't get that without using the work of artists who are alive and creating right now.
I do agree with you on the part that I don't feel the same responsibilities towards another artist vs an art creating software. See, I've never seen other artists as a threat, I share how I do things if people ask (and if it's something I know how to put into words - not always the case), I share my supplies with artists who are physically near, I spread the word about opportunities and good clients and so on. I want to see other artists succeed, on one hand because they're people and I want that for all people, and on the other hand because I'm excited for them to keep making art - because art tends to change both the artist and the viewer for the better, if it's what the viewer needs at that moment. I might get excited about contributing to the training of an art AI software as well, as long as it was consensual and fairly compensated instead of a grift that puts more money into the pockets of those who have more than enough while harming those who often struggle. (And to address your example with the student getting inspiration from the masters - this effectively never had the same effect as AI does now, because even a brilliant student that would go on to outshine his master generally takes many years to form his style and form a client base, and often their master's career would have run its course unaffected meanwhile. Whereas AI art software has been available to the public for barely a couple of years and it has already changed how things are done in parts of industries that rely on artists, having systemic rather than individual impact)
I'm not afraid of "robots" replacing us (nor do I appreciate the use of that term as if you're talking to children - the distinction between robots and software isn't as arcane as that). I know the value of what we artists offer, and I am getting a clearer view of it every day as I create, look at art and talk about it with various people- I'm not insecure, nor do I need cheering up. I just want to be able to talk about the negative effects the AI boom has on some of us at the moment and be taken seriously. It's not the end of the world but it's not nothing, either. And sometimes it feels like a double slap in the face - first from the people who make the software, and second from those who offer us a "positive view" on it as a response to our complaints. I'm sure you meant well but your comment landed very poorly for me.
