[7steps2much]

> Now, I completely agree with the licensing issue when it comes to github's copilot. It used public code to train, and therefor any work that is produced through it should be public as well. It's a different issue.

Artwork can be very much licensed the same way that code can. If I train my AI on Creative Commons Share Alike or None Commercial licenses then why should that be any different?

And if we honour one sort of licensing, the copyleft side, why should we treat the other side, the copyright differently?

Either AI is allowed to ignore copyright and licenses for everything or it's not, copy or painting, it makes no difference.