True. they were fine providing advances to their field for others to learn and build from that shared legacy. They didn't agree for their work to be the base of auto-slopping at industrial scale. Quite easy to understand, except for AI-bros.
How is this morally different from e.g. weavers and loom operators being automated or ceramics or anything else? Or programmers?
We've been automating people "out of jobs" since at least the start of the industrial revolution. It's generally considered to be a goos thing.
We had a sort of weird special case for copyright preventing certain types of machine automation and I've heard plenty of complaints about how that worked, but it more or less did work for a while.
I feel like "don't agree" is a weird framing, because it assumes that all technological innovations must have the explicit and affirmative consent of all parties they could directly or indirectly affect. Not to mention that "artists" are not a monolith any more than "AI bros" are.
I could sort of get behind something like this in theory (weighing each new technology based on whether it furthers the values of the community, and rejecting it if it doesn't, kinda like what the Amish do), but I'm not sure it's being applied neutrally or consistently here, nor do I think it works in practice especially for something as decentralized as a diffusion model, which are surprisingly simple to build and train and can run on a home GPU.
