I've recently noticed this opinion seems unpopular, at least on Lemmy.
There is nothing wrong with downloading public data and doing statistical analysis on it, which is pretty much what these ML models do. They are not redistributing other peoples' works (well, sometimes they do, unintentionally, and safeguards to prevent this are usually built-in). The training data is generally much, much larger than the model sizes, so it is generally not possible for the models to reconstruct random specific works. They are not creating derivative works, in the legal sense, because they do not copy and modify the original works; they generate "new" content based on probabilities.
My opinion on the subject is pretty much in agreement with this document from the EFF: https://www.eff.org/document/eff-two-pager-ai
I understand the hate for companies using data you would reasonably expect would be private. I understand hate for purposely over-fitting the model on data to reproduce people's "likeness." I understand the hate for AI generated shit (because it is shit). I really don't understand where all this hate for using public data for building a "statistical" model to "learn" general patterns is coming from.
I can also understand the anxiety people may feel, if they believe all the AI hype, that it will eliminate jobs. I don't think AI is going to be able to directly replace people any time soon. It will probably improve productivity (with stuff like background-removers, better autocomplete, etc), which might eliminate some jobs, but that's really just a problem with capitalism, and productivity increases are generally considered good.
Yeah, I don't care enough about copyright to get mad at sluicing the entire internet down to a gigabyte of linear algebra. This tech is neat and I'm not going to pretend otherwise.
Most people's real issue is that "neat" is as far as it goes. It's pretty okay at making pretty okay images. You want better? Ehhh. This is ultimately going to be an amazing filter for sparse and sloppy inputs - turning a low-framerate animatic into a whole-ass cartoon. But if all you do is type in "funny cartoon five stars best quality" then you're gonna get slop and deserve it.
We should look forward to what traditionally creative people use all of this for, to fill in a shitload of work that'd take a bunch of other people. It'll let some rando with a killer script turn it into a professional-ish movie instead of a professional-ish novel. We'll get over the odd tells as surely as we got over blatant greenscreen and blatant CGI.
And if any business expects legal protections for something a machine cranked out, they can take a flying fuck at the moon. A writer producing their script can still claim ownership of their story. The actual video file starring a hybrid of Heath Ledger and Bela Lugosi... no.