I agree that under the current system of "idea ownership" someone needs to be held responsible, but in my opinion it's ultimately a futile action. The moment that arbitrary individuals are allowed to download these models and use them independently (HuggingFace, et al), all control of whatever is in the model is lost. Shutting down Open AI or Anthropic doesn't remove the models from people's computers, and doesn't eliminate the knowledge of how to train them.

I have a gut feeling this is going to change the face of copyright, and it's going to be painful. We collectively weren't ready.

Couple of things here - what do you do with the open source models already published? There's terabytes of data encapsulated in those. Some have published corpora, some don't. How do you plan to determine that a work comes from an unregistered AI?

Also, with respect to "within the country" - VPNs exist. TOR exists. SD cards exist. What's your plan to control the flow of trained models without violating civil rights?

This is a teflon slope covered in oil. (IMO)

That way people can see if their works have been stolen or not.

Firstly, nothing at all is being "stolen." The words you're looking for are "copyright violation."

Secondly, it does not currently appear that training an AI model on published material is a copyright violation. You're going to have to point to some actual law indicating that. Currently that sort of thing is generally covered by fair use.

Legitimately, it's like these people have no understanding of the actual technology.

The other response you've received talked about a very small subset of overtrained images, which makes sense on why they can be replicated. anyone who trained on creating a specific image a million times would be able to replicate that image easily. Even then it takes a lot of luck and effort to accurately replicate the exact image to any degree.

If you are not specifically trying to recreate an overly popular image, then there is practically no element left from any particular image that you can consider represented to any thieving extent.

Considering that it is effectively acting on a pareidolia interpretation of static represented by countless possible prompt and setting combinations, the copyright issue should only really be relevant when people use the tool specifically trying to recreate a particular work. Literally any other paint program would be more effective for that style of theft.

As an artist, in regards to the pareidolia aspect, I do virtually the same thing when illustrating an image. Disney/Warner can already afford as many peasants to learn or recreate whatever styles they want. I can't afford a team of lackeys. I can however use an open source diffusion model to create entirely unique and personally tailored and designed illustrations that suit my artistic objective.

Existing concept of copywrite does not work for this scenario, and if people should argue anything, it should be that wealthy businesses specifically have much more restriction and responsibility in use of tools and in excessive control of the artistic market.

I'm personally excited for a future where peasant artists can also create complex beautiful works using these tools.

Think about ending up with holodeck level of personal creative freedom, and being able to create things in that experience the you can share with others.

The current system already robs and suppresses actual art.

Just like every other aggressive reaction to AI, the focus is misdirected and not actually helpful for anyone in any way.

There's usually nothing left of the original image. But sometimes a specific image pops up in the dataset more often and gets overtrained, which is why you can get a pretty close copy of the Starry Night from vanilla SD. But yeah, it's not tracing.