> If technology causes the value of the fruits of that labor to crash Well then, if the fruits are worthless, then presumably there's no loss from excluding it

> If technology causes the value of the fruits of that labor to crash Well then, if the fruits are worthless, then presumably there's no loss from excluding it from a training set, and creating norms or even laws which allow people the privilege of negotiating the basis on which their work can be so used, right? Of course, nobody believes that. Much like no one really believed that unauthorized copies of 18th century print works were valueless just because the production could be industrialized. The enterprises producing unauthorized copies did so because they knew full well they could capture the value... without any of the pesky pro-social obligation to respect the labor and interests of those who created it. The interest in the works as training data betrays the position. This work is valuable, and works derived from it are valuable. > Glaze is useless when an advertising firm is fairly-compensating consenting artists I imagine there will be artists who opt in after negotiating the basis on which their work can be used -- although who knows what kind of surprises there could be there, some might even demand equity or collectively bargain. But deciding there's no need for a framework of negotiation and consent just because some people will get to yes sounds like a really bad precedent. And if the argument is that this isn't sufficient to protect interests, well, sure. Necessary but insufficient points exist all the time, usually the thing to do is pair them with other axioms / initiatives.