[ReliantGuyZ]

It's shocking and offensive to artists and to like-minded others because AI labs have based the product that is replacing them off of their existing labor with no compensation. It would be one thing to build a computerized artist that out-competes human artists on merit (arguably happening now), this has happened to dozens of professions over hundreds of years. But the fact that it was built directly off of their past labors with no offer, plan, or even consideration of making them whole for their labor in the corpus is unjust on its face.

Certainly there are artists with inflated egos and senses of self-importance (many computer programmers with this condition too), but does this give us moral high ground to freely use their work?

How many people is it OK to exploit to create "AI"?

[terminalshort]

Every piece of work is built off of previous work. Henry Ford designed his car based off of the design of previous cars, but made them much more efficiently. No difference here. It's always been the case that once your work is out in the world the competition is allowed to learn from it.

[xvector]

compensation for previous products just hasn't been the norm, and if it becomes the norm, countless humans will suffer due to the slowing of progress.

we will never be able to automate anything because the risk:reward ratio simply won't be there if you have to pay off millions/billions of people. progress will grind to a halt but i guess we'll have preserved some archaic jobs while our children are denied a better world

certainly the Industrial Revolution would never have happened with this mindset