you bring up human mind as if that'd somehow explain, or excuse, or absolve how broken and poorly planned AI systems are, which, unlike human mind, memories, or

you bring up human mind as if that'd somehow explain, or excuse, or absolve how broken and poorly planned AI systems are, which, unlike human mind, memories, or thoughts, are very real, and operate with data, precise, definite and not uncertain in its existence, at every point of their actions. minds don't create a definitive list of every work they encounter, in precise detail, they don't create models that incorporate all of those works into a single entity with comprehensive accessibility, and don't enable others (thousands, millions, in hugely disproportional scale) to use those models, directly, to create yet more and more artifacts. all of these things are definite, tangible, transferrable data. minds are pretty much none of these things. but it doesn't matter what minds are, because it's about AI, and AI is a thing that exists, and it can and should be focused on in for its own merit. without sliding conversations into 'well, what about brains'. nothing about them. it's not about brains. it's about existing AI systems. don't slide. licenses aren't limited to being 'only monetary', 'pay me to use this, otherwise, don't'. some licenses exist to enable distributing things freely, while offering protection of attribution and against misuse of things. (just check out CC licenses). it would be nice if those things would be respected, but they aren't, because there's no mechanism built in that'd discern the licenses, because they don't care. it is not just an attack on 'big bad commercial entities that hold copyrights on works', it's an attack on people who try to protect their works that they give for free, from misuse. (and on those people who just, naively put their work out there. yes, they may be naive, in not choosing licenses (which, as we see, wouldn't protect them against scraping that ignores licenses completely), but they might end up being exploited nonetheless and all the same, and they definitely don't deserve to be victim blamed, when it can be very clear who/what is the perpetrator of exploitation, in a very tangible way with a data trail (direct, definite presence in datasets.) those people who knowingly built systems that ignore any copyrights, any licensing, truly aren't the "good guys" who are "battling corporatist copyright systems", even though they'd probably very much like you to believe that, as they so desperately try to avoid being grilled on copyright issues. the 'standing up to capitalism, monopolies, etc.' is just dysfunctional in itself, as the resulting AI systems are very monetizeable, and are monetized, and SD, despite putting on airs as 'combating monopolies' (in tech, in research), has spread wide and far, and is now being used in a myriad of projects (with varying commercialization), that they're the ones who should be questioned on whether they're a monopoly in image generation algorithms themselves. "but it's free!", yes, that's how things spread, and then they try to upsell you on compute, limited access, or on hot new algorithms, as they dominate the market. they are perpetuating the same flavors of capitalism and monopolism, doing the same 'capture the market' moves (offer product for free, upsell, 'premium features and upgrades', aggressive undercutting and displacement of existing players in existing markets, etc.). those 'hot and new' companies are truly not better. you cannot be giving google side eye for offering a free product and capturing markets, while turning blind to SD offering a free product and capturing markets. ask rms directly on what he'd think of blatant ignoring of licenses, and whether he'd give his blessing to continued operation of systems that pretend that licenses just don't exist. instead of trying to use a 25 year old story as some kind of cover/excuse, like it's some ancient scripture.