> Why are you conflating scientific research (something that is paid), with art that was freely uploaded to social media sites and message boards? Was it paid?

> Why are you conflating scientific research (something that is paid), with art that was freely uploaded to social media sites and message boards? Was it paid? How do you know? A lot of research is done by Ph.D. students, who are paid if you're lucky. Often though they are in fact paying for a degree. Moreover, science and art are often held as two sides of the same coin, because they are both fields that don't generate profit, yet society has deemed socially necessary enough to fund them. So even though scientists and artists are held to be opposites personality wise, the roles they play in society are actually very similar. This means their works are also exploited in a similar way. > Microsoft Designer is not spitting out composites of stolen research, it is creating composites of art that can't be matched back to the original. We could accurately say that Microsoft is profiting off of research done by students who go uncompensated. If a starving artist should be paid because their drawing went into a diffusion model that Microsoft profits off of, why shouldn't a starving student who wrote a paper that MS read to create their diffusion model be compensated as well? > Perhaps you should disclose what AI is stealing from you. For me, nothing, because my career is in an area where I don't have to publicly share my work. Well, that's one of the problems isn't it? Microsoft doesn't have to disclose or attribute any of the works that went into the production of this technology. But in the general case, if you walk through the OpenAI offices, you'll find stacks of research papers, whose authors are listed readily on those papers. If the artists get in on a royalty cut, I don't see why every one of those authors shouldn't as well (and for that matter all the open source devs whose code is running on their systems).