Permission isn't the end-all-be-all. I don't ask for your permission to exist or walk down the street, for example. You could try to make the case that people need to ask for permission first, on a balanced-harms argument, but it's not self-evident to be true.
"It's also not inherently unethical to do things that someone doesn't want, because not all wants are valid or reasonable. A child may not want to have the candy put away, but it is still done anyway."
- ronsor
There is a very narrow window where you can argue about the proportionality of state's monopoly on violence to coerce someone. There you can argue about the competing ethical needs to keep society safe vs a criminal's lack of consent to be imprisoned.
But that's not what we're discussing. Should a large company be able to ignore consent in order to create a product for profit?
Since you brought up coercion as a reason for consent, do note that when your works are used, no action is being done upon you. So what coercion is being done here?
On the other hand, copyright proponents are the ones trying to coerce other people, restricting them from using what they already have access to via the use of copyright laws, backed by state violence. We do not consent to copyright laws.
Of course, the copyright of corporations producing AI is protected by state violence as well. But I do not regard that as legitimate either, so people should try and make that more open (pirating the models) instead of trying to close down their own works.
Ah yes. Property is theft. So I'm allowed to take your car because you're trying to restrict me from using something I have easy access to once I break your window. No harm has come to you, has it?
Unfortunately, we live in a world governed by laws and society. For 300 years copyright has been the law of the land (in varying degrees). It was bought about, in part, because people feel that someone mis-using their property is undesirable.
You cannot tell people that their feels are invalid. Lots of these artists feel aggrieved that their art is being misused. They think the law has been broken and a social contract has been violated. What argument do you have against that other than "you're wrong to feel that way"?
Do note that (1) personal property differs from private property, (2) IP laws are definitely private property in that they give the owner power over the consumers, and (3) you cannot compare scarce resources (e.g. a car) to abundant resources (e.g. information), essentially, don't commit the "you wouldn't download a car" fallacy.
> It was bought about, in part, because people feel that someone mis-using their property is undesirable.
Really? Wasn't it to promote the progress of the arts and sciences? The whole point of IP laws is to, ultimately, benefit the public domain. Feelings by themselves aren't a really good argument either, when talking about a law that does harm to the general public.
One one hand I want better AI that can generate whatever image that comes to my mind.
On the other hand I don’t want it to blatantly copy someone else’s style that they spent years making.
US is pretty fucked since it has very little safety net compared to other modern countries if AI really started replacing humans.
This is people’s livelihoods we are talking about.
Will AI cause people to commit suicide? Yeah if it starts replacing them and they lose meaning in life.