And artists tracing for non-educational methods, posting that art (even if used to learn), and/or selling that art is bad, therefore not an excuse for AI art. Have you seen the shit tracers get in art communities?? Just look at Pink Cat, who got thrown out of a convention opportunity- an actual business opportunity- because of her tracing. AI works by literally mashing different images together so the style & reference arguments fall short. AI is unethical and steals from artists. And, ngl, I have played around with AI until I got something I liked before for fun! ...It does NOT take near as much work as actual art does and the effort is NOT comparable IMO, esp with the years artists take to learn how to draw/paint/etc.
Viewing post in AI assets are so annoying
Where did you read that it is an excuse? I seem to remind that I explicitly worded it like a problem that (some) AI art has. It is not better (morally) than tracing.
If you were to outsource your art commission to a sweatshop, the artists that people want to protect from AI would still not have your commisions. Even better (actually, worse), if people condemn AI art, there would be more of an incentive to have such sweatshops, just to be able to tell, a human made it. You see similar evasions how companies try to get a label of Made in Country or for food , where they do one tiny step in production to be able to tell that the meat is locally made.
Against some AI one can argue with the trainging methods, similar to tracing, but those arguments would not hold for other AI concepts. The fact that you use mass production to put people out of jobs never worked as an argument in the past. There need to be better arguments against AI.
"It" literally is a piece of software. "it" can do nothing, since it has no agency of it's own. And the discussion about AI training and laws is pending.
Your argument about AI that were trained with art from non consenting artists will be invalid for AI trained by public domain and consenting artists.