AI art itself is not the problem, it's the abuse of image copyrights. Companies continually dodge the question, redirect the conversation to "but is it art", ma

AI art itself is not the problem, it's the abuse of image copyrights. Companies continually dodge the question, redirect the conversation to "but is it art", make excuses like 'the scale is too big to control for image licenses' (but not too big to take advantage of that data), when in reality, no effort has been made to acknowledge that images have owners, licenses, copyrights, and no effort has been made into creating a system that would take those licenses into account and process data accordingly. If these advancements are a result of systematic ignoring and abuse of image copyrights, is it ethical to continue to use them? That said, as much as it is 'image copyright abuse' problem, it's still directly connected to AI art, so denouncing all AI art is justified. I don't see these issues being resolved any time soon. This massive scale exploitation will go on, as it continues to exist in legal gray area and not get enough legal attention and pushback (when a system abuses billions of works, and individual artists might be small and disparate, it may be hard for pushback to accumulate, or even happen at all), and then it might just get a green light to continue functioning the way it does. Sure, some 'more ethical' systems might pop up, but that won't change the bigger picture.