may i suggest adding a link or mention to Nightshade or Glaze? they're both programs made to combat ai art by adding nearly invisible noise, it's almost unnoticable to the human eye, but it essentially poisons ai! i don't want to add a link just in case, but it seems beneficial to mention

Combating debatable ethics by ruining something else seems seems like a prime example of two wrongs don't make a right. It's like protesting Nestle by locking employees in the factory and shutting it down.

what exactly is nightshade or glaze "ruining"

Damaging a tech that could actually be good provided regulations about it's data usage are applied. I think the AI issue is way more complex than "New tech bad, artist good, developer should rot in prison."

discussion with you is pointless if you think that stopping models from being trained off of stolen art is as bad as the act of stealing art itself.

The statement never said data stealing was good, but the problem is people love to hate on the concept itself and not just the shady ways the database is fed. I agree that art theft isn't good, but if you try to propose something like a "public" database artists could willingly feed (while still retaining full ownership of their creation) the art still seems to have an issue with it.

.

The discussion in this thread seems to be getting a bit sidetracked, so we're going to remind everyone that this isn't about whether AI art is somehow inherently evil. The issue that has us disallowing it is that the lack of legal regulation and rampant art theft currently considered to be normal practice in generating AI art are incompatible with our longstanding position on art theft. Much in the same way that image aggregator sites are incompatible with our position. Neither demonization nor assumption of demonization is warranted as part of this discussion.