The REAL Fight Over AI Art

I think the idea that the AI is simply taking inspiration from an artists work is slightly disingenuous. Computers don't function the same way we do. If I draw a banana, the computer will translate that into numbers/code. The computer may simply see that as 9 4 5. Obviously this is oversimplification. Should you type the prompt "banana hat", the AI may only use the 9 and not the 4 and 5 but there is a direct link, not a loose sense of "inspiration". The process (if I understand it correctly) is much more akin to sampling. You absolutely need to pay the original artist for a sample if there is commercial gain, furthermore permission must be granted. These AI generators are not supernatural beings without form, they are conceived and ran by tech companies who are liable to the same fair use laws we are.

It's not simply a case of "how will I compete with bots". It's how do I protect my IP. Most AI generators set restrictions on hate speech but that doesn't cover my personal beliefs. I may not want an image in my style representing a football club I don't like, or representing religious views I don't have. These may not be illegal but still important to me.

There are benefits I can see for an artist beyond switching ones role to head prompt typist. Say I was a graphic designer hired by a company to create a new brand identity. I could in theory create a set of work as the basis and collect some sort of residual for all future AI generated work within a time period.

AI generators are dependant on their image and prompt libraries. As such they are beholden to the contributors of said libraries, regardless of how costly that may be to the tech companies or how much of a bummer that may be to you who'd like to create master paintings without investing any effort.