> artists deserve to be compensated for their work and I see something being set up to do that We haven't figured out micropayments to simple online articles,

> artists deserve to be compensated for their work and I see something being set up to do that We haven't figured out micropayments to simple online articles, let alone how much an artist should be compensated for an output from an AI model that includes some weight where the source image was of statistical significance. My point is that the only chance artists have of getting paid is to charge for the training dataset (the source, not the output). The issue is, a lot of them will post their work online (in worse quality, just as a demo), and that will still be perfectly fine to be in a training dataset. Who will say the AI can't be trained on that? My brain certainly can and nobody is charging me after I see some art online and decide to, say, paint it myself. Are there laws against copying style? Artists will probably have to come together in a union of sorts to have any power. That has never happened at the scale required to impact AI vendors, I think. Either that or government steps in and demand AI be trained on some kind of certified dataset with proof of origin, with penalties for using non-certified datasets. Maybe that will be the only way to have people compensated.