I'm just pragmatic.

> And art isn’t about being competent or perfect.

Sure if you like looking at terrible deviantart posts.

I'd rather have a competent model instead of a crippled one. I don't think artists should be able to stall AI progress because they think AI will take their jerbs.

AI is going to take all of our jobs eventually.

> consciously to spite actual humans who have copyright laws that are meant to protect those individuals from intellectual property theft - it’s pretty messed up

No copyright laws are breached.

No one goes after artists who learned their craft by copying and learning from others. The only difference between a human copying a style and an AI copying a style is the amount of effort involved. People clutch pearls now that it can be done in seconds instead of weeks (or years if using an untrained artist).

Whaaaaat... that subreddit is like a train wreck, I can't look away.

I don't think the philosophical argument has been thoroughly explored yet. IMO, using a living artist's work as training data is morally fine. Getting a lot of boomer vibes from those who disagree.

> Another possible attack vector is corrupting human mind via user interface

Sounds like imagery used in Snowcrash to induce death, except coercion instead.

There's also plain ol' social engineering of sympathetic humans.