Before YouTube’s switch to “your going to watch 6 ads before the video starts, and you are going to like it,” schtick, I always enjoyed getting to skip the ad before they managed to tell me what the product even was.

It doesn’t need to be an animated visual to be distracting or NSFW…

That’s a lot of faith that the ads would be SFW, let alone not distracting.

Not only that, but then they go and blow half of their budget on adverts instead of R&D.

While, yes it is not copy and paste in the literal sense, it does still have the capacity to outright copy the style of an artist’s work that was used to train it.

If teaching another artist’s work is already frowned upon when trying to pass the trace off as one’s own work, then there’s little difference when a computer does it more convincingly.

Maybe a bit off tangent here, since I’m not even sure if this is strictly possible, but if a generative system was only trained off of, say, only Picasso’s work, would you be able to pass the outputs off as Picasso pieces? Or would they be considered the work of the person writing a prompt or built the AI? What if the artist wasn’t Picasso but someone still alive, would they get a cut of the profits?

The art isn’t being made btw so much as being copy and pasted in a way that might convince you it was new.

Since the AI cannot create a new style or genre on its own, without source material that already exists to train it, and that source material is often scraped up off of databases, often against the will and intent of the original creators, it is seen as theft.

Especially if the artists were in no way compensated.