I hate that I have to explain this to you because you should genuinely be smart enough to know better. The reason AI stealing is distinct from reference usage or collages or redraws or heavily inspired works is because they are human. Because artists form community, and that involves sharing with and supporting one another. Because references and inspiration are a result of respect for an artist you enjoy, and being inspired by something you loved. A machine feels no love. A machine feels no respect. A machine can only ever take with no genuine way to give back to a community. Ai artists aren't artists. They couldn't tell you even one of the art pieces that went into their AI amalgamation. They couldn't tell you who their ideas are from or why they liked it or why they were inspired. All they do is take. And they don't give back in any meaningful way.
And for the record, because i know you're going to cry ableism despite plenty of disabled people expressing how fucking distasteful all this is. No, I don't think someone has to work or be productive to have a place in society. Sometimes what you "give back" is simply love or enjoyment or respect. None of which a machine can give. None of which an Ai artists who doesn't know where their art comes from can give.
Missed this one. Well I've got bad news for you.
I am literally not even human.
I create derivative art often as a direct and deliberate act of disrespect towards the original creators. Because they disrespected my own and other marginalized groups first. If the disrespect is wrongful, like for example the other way around when marginalized (self-)representation is erased or caricatured, the problem is in that.
What I appreciate about someone's creation, what I get from it, and what I think of the author, are three entirely separate things. Well, the first two often do go together with, like, stories, but when I'm using a reference I am using it, not appreciating it. And appreciating some aspects of a creation will not make me love or respect the creator if they also give me reasons to Not Do That.
Sometimes there is specifically appreciation of the author in my art. That is far from default, and when that happens it does not magically make that art of mine fundamentally philosophically different from all other. I have shared fanfiction fanart with the fics' authors and they loved it and I loved that. Cool! That art was not morally superior to when I'm just making something for myself, and was not the only one that had the right to be called art.
And while I do feel love (which is just that — a feeling), many others don't.
Plenty of disabled people also express how distasteful your shit is. The difference isn't between "lots of disabled people" vs "a few disabled people". The difference is between "disabled people who believe that disabled people still owe to proof their worth and that disabled people below certain levels of ability have no right to accommodate themselves as they see fit" and "disabled people who don't".
No one is obligated to give you love or enjoyment. Respect only as far as not restricting your autonomy, rather than restricting theirs for your comfort which is what you want from them. And many are literally unable to give that love and enjoyment. No. Matter. What. They must still have their needs met if that is included under what you were talking about. You must have your needs met. Restricting someone's access to something is not a need, no matter what it is. It is about restricting their autonomy, not maintaining yours.
My fully self-executed transgender aromantic unretconned-severely-disabled Raistlin Majere fanfiction is art, and someone's AI-executed or -assisted creation is too.
And what the fuck is that "explaining to me when I should know better", maybe stop getting into your heads that people can only disagree with you because they just Don't Know Better? But it's also always that they should have! Maybe I don't and couldn't. Or maybe I just fucking disagree.