You’re moving the goalposts. Your original reply made no mention of co-authorship by a human, it was just one sweeping statement.

AI art is not protected by copyright, yes. That isn’t a “should” but rather how it actually works in nearly all countries but a few, certainly including the US.

But they do, explicitly:

Many popular AI platforms offer tools that encourage users to select, edit, and adapt AI- generated content in an iterative fashion. Midjourney, for instance, offers what it calls “Vary Region and Remix Prompting,” which allow users to select and regenerate regions of an image with a modified prompt. In the “Getting Started” section of its website, Midjourney provides the following images to demonstrate how these tools work.¹³⁶

Unlike prompts alone, these tools can enable the user to control the selection and placement of individual creative elements. Whether such modifications rise to the minimum standard of originality required under Feist will depend on a case-by-case determination.¹³⁸ In those cases where they do, the output should be copyrightable. Similarly, the inclusion of elements of AI-generated content in a larger human-authored work does not affect the copyrightability of the larger human-authored work as a whole.¹³⁹ For example, a film that includes AI-generated special effects or background artwork is copyrightable, even if the AI effects and artwork separately are not.

This isn’t true. You should read the latest guidance by the United States Copyright Office.

I see it as a time capsule, capturing a moment in time in the medium’s evolution. I mean, check out the first ever AI-generated image that sold for $432,500 USD back in 2018:

Hybrid animal illustrations, abstract art, portraits, and world morph images where you illustrate something made out of an unusual material.

But there’s already tons of generative art that gets discussed, lauded, shared, and remixed. Even when in negative connotations, it’s proving that generative art, warts and all, is a new form of art that is shaking things up, challenging preconceptions, and getting people angry - just like art should.

Jesus fucking christ. Only four more years. I hope.

I think this is the other one I remember seeing.

Have you seen this? There was another paper, but I can’t remember the name of it right now.

I think it’s pretty cool. A lot of the things people are doing with open weights models are incredible and free for everyone to use.

It’s career suicide to not be seen working as hard as everyone else in Japan. It’s a thing to not go home until the boss has left.

I remember reading that this program was only available to employees with young children, and they had to take a pay cut to take that extra day. If it’s voluntary, no one will take it.

I have a feeling this experiment would sooner get the axe than have ads injected. There was initially a waiting list, but just a few days in it was completely open to the public.

Sometimes they just do research. Like when their employees made transformers and nothing came of them until Open AI capitalized on it.

There are ads in them now? I didn’t encounter any when using it a few days ago.

I just generated one and didn’t hear any ads.

As long as your AI doesn’t somehow infringe on your training data, you’re allowed to use whatever you want, just like reviewers, analysts, and indexers do.

They’re trained on technical material too.

Art isn’t work, it’s speech. It’s part of the human condition. Art is useless, said Wilde. Art is for art’s sake—that is, for beauty’s sake.

I do not make art, I just post it here on lemmy. I’d be OK with that. People freely create, copy, and iterate on memes, and they are the greatest cultural touchstones we have. First and foremost, people create because they have something to say.