>If you go to art school, what you do is study and analyze what artists have done before you. You don't have to go to art school to produce art. Even if you do

>If you go to art school, what you do is study and analyze what artists have done before you. You don't have to go to art school to produce art. Even if you do go, there's nothing stopping you from producing art unlike what you studied. >We humans learn much in the same way as an AI. We study what has been made by others. I think accusing AI generated work to theft, is a based on the wrong assumptions. What assumptions? >It's not just art. What do you do in computer science courses? Or math, language, physics, or any other subject? You study what has already been made. Most of "what has already been made" is not "copyrighted work for which you have no license or exception" >What you produce based on that knowledge is not considered theft. It certainly can be. >Have you ever seen an AI image that, if a human made it, would be considered a theft? I've certainly seen AI produce things that would be considered copyright violation or misappropriation of likeness or similar offences if they were to be used commercially.