Rule

It's the same rule, "fair use". Copyright isn't absolute, it needs to strike a balance between "give creators control of their thing" but also "people deserve to participate in our collective culture."

Making a one-off drawing of a character and not trying to make money off of it likely checks the fair use boxes (it's an explicitly fuzzy system, so a trial would be needed to say for sure if it's fair use or not). Whether the training set for a generative AI system is fair use or not is still an open question, but many feel that it can't be, as it's operating on a massive scale (basically every image ever created by humanity) and has the potential to eliminate the entire industry of humans selling the art they create, which copyright is supposed to protect. Ghibli isn't going to be harmed by someone drawing a picture of their characters for a meme. It could be harmed by another company making money off of mass production of knockoffs of their style which were created with thousands of unauthorized copies of their direct artwork.

I have no respect of a AI user who use AI and call them Artist.

The second situation is a fantasy until after we have a communist revolution.

Only because it was taken from the public by Disney, since the courts ceased recognizing the public as stakeholders.

But the Constitutional function of copyright is to create a robust public domain. As that is no longer the function of copyright, we can abolish it. And the only thing that is keeping us from abolishing it is the same obstacles keeping us from abolishing autocracy.

So revolution that bridges the way to socialized art may be more necessary in the immediate future than it appears (whether or not it's easy).

I agree, I think generative AI is insanely cool technology (and if a new local one comes out I'll probably play with it for a bit) but I can't see image generation at least ever being a net positive for humanity until we get some sort of welfare state.

Currently the negative effects are mitigated by it being relatively easy to tell ai images apart from real images, and since ai images take almost no effort to make, they have naturally become an instant sign marking low effort content wherever they are used. When people stop being able to tell ai images apart is when it will start to become a problem.

Just remember: a medical doctors opinion on why your car broke down is less valuable than a mechanics opinion.

So, you think the need of artist to eat is a problem?

I mean, if anything an artist do it's worlds patrimony then they will me above the rules of capitalism and don't need to use money for food and tools, right?

I mean that will be the best solution, the artist will be able to do art and not content just to gain some bucks.

But no, the solution its a machine that generate content and take out the only weapon the artist have to being able to survive in this economy.

Don't think he drew for a living but drew for a fortune 🤣

Glad you are ok with it. Because that's what will happen. And you may not notice in the echo chamber but an big chunk of the population just uses generative AI for a lot of different purposes. And does not share your views about it. People is diverse, and that includes diverse opinions on copyright/copyleft morality.

And you will eventually lose everyone who is not exactly like you, because "you don't care". And then you'll be alone.

And when they come for you, and you are alone you will post this comic strip of "first they came for..." And blame on others that you are alone and no one show up to stop them from taking you.

Less CO2 than playing a videogame.

I can generate an AI image with my graphics card at 100% in 5 seconds, probably less.

I gaming afternoon can be 5 hours with the same graphics cars at 100%.

I suppose you are also worry by the increase of CO2 usage in 3d art, or in digital art instead of pen and paper art. Are you not?

For me it takes less processing power to generate an AI still than to render a frame in blender with a lot of lighting, shaders and whatnot involved.

Explain it to me, oh wise one.

No.