> Also 'trained' is a complete misnomer.
This here shows that you are speaking without understanding what you are speaking about.
AI is absolutely trained. It's a process that is quite literally inspired by the way we understood neurons to work in the 1970s.
AI start with a big batch of random numbers. There's a big fancy scientific method used to adjust those numbers in order to cause the system to learn to do some task.
The process creates genuine and novel understanding of the problem space at hand. AI trained to do something simple, like add two numbers, will have a real solution to add two numbers in them once you have finished training them.
With bigger problems, similar understanding certainly exists and in some cases has been proven to exist. However, once you get to the difficult problems with billions of parameters, it's very difficult for us to check that because if we could we would have just written it without needing to use an AI in the first place.
There are lots of researchers who do lots of study and effort to ensure that AI are actually producing real outputs and have genuine understanding of the problems face they are working in. Do not insist that AI has no understanding if you have not taken the time to learn about those techniques.
Stable diffusion has genuine understanding of different images and how to produce them within it. It is not a simple system that reproduces would already exists. It is not a collage tool. It is not incapable of producing novel outputs.
Diffusion models are perfectly capable of producing any image that can possibly exist. It is only a matter of time before someone invents a new style that hasn't been seen before, and someone else is able to find a combination of descriptive words that causes stable diffusion to produce that output.
Or that someone produces a novel combination of words, chucks it into stable diffusion (or some other AI model), and produces a new style of art.
> Art is made with physical motor skills, time and effort. AI is a human made program that uses human made imagery, classified by more humans to generate a shopping list written by another human who want art that requires no effort of aquiring the physical skill needed to make the art. With no physical product, there is no AI art
This is simply not true. Art is incredibly cultural, vaguely defined, and often involves little to no work at all. If someone prompts an AI, gets a result, and sticks it to a wall, calling it art, it is probably able to be considered art.
> If you want to physically copy my art, go for it, I will applaud your skill, but taking my art and shoving it in a program
In short, it appears that you are threatened by the existence of AI and the copyright argument is not actually about copyright, it's about ensuring that the competition does not exist, and that people did not have access to these tools that might make artists less valuable.