It becomes harder and harder to create new art when every art style, every melody, every plot point is owned by someone else and you're prevented from using it.

If the things that Stable Diffusion produces isn't art, then new art will be made in the same way it was made before copyright existed (patronage).

If it is art, then it will be made both by patronage and by people saying: "Hey StableChatSiri, make me some art."

(People will still do the later even if it doesn't count as art).

Hm. Thinking of patrons, does anyone know how many artists and sculptors there were in 1710 England?

> What's the incentive for an artist if at the first whiff of success their output is overtaken and resold by technocrats with machines?

Because when I have access to these tools I will make better art than the technocrat with access to these tools?

Who cares? Seriously. The technology is far more important than their little incentives. Copyright has already destroyed computer freedom and the internet. It can't be allowed to destroy yet another awesome innovation.

I keep programming computers just because I like it. Maybe they'll keep creating too for the same reasons. Maybe they won't. It's irrelevant either way.

totally ludicrous and hard to believe you actually think this. please take a glance at all of human history.

why does art have to be commercial at all? artmakers will art, with or without compensation.

Many people create art with the only incentive is that they want to. 3.3 million guitars were sold in the US in 2021. Many of those will never be used outside of a bedroom.

Love of their craft. The same reason anybody undertakes any creative endeavor without charging for it. I admit my position is a bit extreme, but I would like to see the concept of IP abolished as it has become an abusive dead weight on culture.

More moderately, all art is derivative at the end of the day. None of it was created ex nihilo. We already have legal guardrails for direct reproduction of specific characters and specific pieces, and that is plenty. The fact that maximalists want to kill a nascent technology by restricting the right to learn from, something that even our extremely slanted laws have carveouts for, is nothing short of offensive.