It's hilarious how when I express displeasure about AI image generators looking likely to take a huge bite out of my profession of "artist" and playing extremely fast and loose with fair use, I get told that it's completely inevitable now and I should either retrain as a prompt engineer or go join the buggy whip manufacturers, but now that this is clearly violating programmer copyrights, you folks are starting to get angry.
I'll just leave y'all with my favorite of the things you keep telling me to STFU about art AI with: If you're the kind of programmer who feels threatened by this, then you're not a real programmer.
I'll admit it took me longer to connect the dots on this one but when I was tinkering with an image generator and it gave me a clear istockphoto watermark, I knew something was amiss.
Unless the image generators routinely generate specific works produced by you (or other artists) then it’s not a directly comparable situation to Copilot.
Yes, this would be a good example of genuine copyright infringement that shouldn't be tolerated.
Of course, it doesn't mean that all or even most DALL-E output infringes on someone's copyright. The same is true for Copilot. I think both have many legitimate uses if and when the "copyright laundering" issue is solved.
I'm a programmer, I don't really feel threatened by Github copilot. If the world can produce code more cheaply, the world becomes a much better place for everyone and a little worse place for developers.
I'll just leave y'all with my favorite of the things you keep telling me to STFU about art AI with: If you're the kind of programmer who feels threatened by this, then you're not a real programmer.