There has been precedent for such a movement. In 2011, an "art collective" sourced user-submitted artwork without the artists' consent for an installation where

There has been precedent for such a movement. In 2011, an "art collective" sourced user-submitted artwork without the artists' consent for an installation where visitors were instructed to step all over printouts of the art on the floor. The artists complained that their work was being used inappropriately. A large number of those artists to left for other art websites en masse.[0] There doesn't seem to be an equivalent movement with AI-generated art, probably because the understanding of how the models are trained from large datasets is not mainstream yet. I would imagine thousands of those same artists/consumers would be up in arms if they had a basic understanding of ML and millions of average people were beginning to feed the models their own keywords. This I think ties in with the "responsibility" principles that OpenAI outlines. Once the generation technique has been reverse-engineered and can be used without limits, there is no way to uninvent it. It can be made illegal, but humans can always find a way around laws if they want something badly enough. This could have drastic consequences if enough artists believe that the training violates their respect or other intangible humanistic qualities. With technological advancement that can never be put back in the bottle and spreads to occupy the entire consciousness of the Internet, their options for recourse will be far different than being able to tell a single fringe art group siphoning others' content to pack up and leave. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixiv#Chaos_Lounge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixiv#Chaos_Lounge