I work as an AI engineer and any company that's has a legal department that isn't braindead isn't stealing content. The vast majority of content posted online is done so under a creative commons licence, which allows other people to do basically whatever they want with that content, so it's in no way shape or form stealing.

No you don't understand, the machine works exactly like a human brain! That makes stealing the work of others completely justifiable and not even really theft!

/s, bc apparently this community has a bunch of dumbass tech bros that genuinely think this

Equating training AI to not being able to profit is stupid as shit and the same bullshit argument big companies use to say "we lost a bazillion dollars to people pursuing out software" someone training their AI on an art work (that is probably under a creative commons licence anyway) does suck money out of an artists pocket they would have otherwise made.

Artists and other creatives who actually do work to create art (not shitting out text into an image generator) should take every priority over AI "creators."

Why are you the one that gets to decide what is "work" to create art? Should digital artists not count because they are computer assisted, don't require as much skill and technique as "traditional" artists and use tools that are based on the work of others like, say, brush makers?

And the language you use shows that you're vindictive and angry.

Unless you have been locked in a sensory deprivation tank for your whole life, and have independently developed the English language, you too have learned from other people's content.

Then don't post your art or face publicly, I agree with you if it's obtained through malicious ways, but if you post it publicly than expect it to be used publicly

Luckily, AI aren't the master's tools, they're a public technology. That's why they're already trying their had at regulatory capture. Just like they're trying to destroy encryption. Support open source development, It's our only chance. Their AI will never work for us. John Carmack put it best.

Why not? Same as a person being inspired to reuse certain aspects. Artists reuse other artists work constantly and usually more blatantly than what AI does.

I wouldn't want to copyright every visual pattern conceivable, everything would be a copyright violation of some sort.

That wouldn't be ai though? That would just be looking up hashes.

No, they very explicitly don't. They claim a licence in perpetuity to nearly all the same rights as the data owner, but the data subject is still the owner.

Also, that licence may not be so robust. A judge should see that the website has no obligation to continue hosting the website, and they offer nothing in return for the data, so the perpetual licence is not a reasonable term in the contract and should be struck down to something the data subject can rescind. In some respects we do have this with "the right to be forgotten" and to have businesses delete your data, however the enforcement of this is sorely lacking.

Laws change over time, though. Everyone is the victim of this practice, so eventually the law should catch up.