The current trend of Lensa, Midjourney, etc is rent seeking ghoulish behavior that seeks to destabilize artistic labor even more than it already is.
This is NFT shit all over again and theres needs to be a zero tolerance of it. This is automated theft and exploitation to be stopped.
Wanting compensation for your labor does not makes you a landlord. Landlords to not contribute anything and deny people something that is required to live. Art is a luxury good and anyone can learn to be an artists.
Not only that but, these AI models are imperfect and are improving by having people, like you, use them and test them without compensation to you. You are being exploited into free labor by the people who own the AI models. By continuing to use them and allow their use you are aiding these companies who, at any time, can make it so these programs are no longer free.
You are helping the landlords build the house.
As a BMA player, I have to vote against this. AI image generation isn't just 'omg lets replace all digital painters'- it is a tool that many people are using maliciously, or creating their own editions of in a malicious way, but it is not itself inherently evil.
People post all kinds of heinous shit on twitter, including the revenge porn you use as your main talking point. Should we be banned from saying the word 'twitter', or embedding twitter posts? People write mean things with words, should we ban words?
I understand where you're coming from, but an outright ban would be overly hostile when the real threat is not AI image generation, but people who use it for evil. :/
This guilt by association talking point depends entirely on lacking the most basic education about how diffusion models actually work, which is probably why nobody bothered to address it.
But whether the argument has any validity or not, if someone experiences such a strongly negative emotional reaction to it, tag muffling has been implemented.
I am one of the most frequent posters of AI generated material, and systematically use the tag "AI Generated" for the benefit of anyone who wishes to block or seek out this material.
I posted encouragements to others to use this tag. If someone won't follow AI users, also blocks the Stable Diffusion, Dall-e 2 and ChatGPT tags, they will certainly remove 90% of AI generated material from their timeline.
The fact staff certainly received reports about my AI generation experiments and did nothing about it, while members of staff have also stable diffusion images for shitposting, should make it clear where the policy stands anyway. Nobody wants to import the sorts of bitter fights we're seeing on Reddit or Twitter here.
"I'm perfectly ok using a program that was trained on stolen medical, photos and isis beheadings because none of the actual pixels are in the new images! :)"
We already have tag muffling, blocking and other features either implemented or planned for implementation which enable users to avoid content they are morally opposed to. It should be on the users to curate their experiences, not the site staff to react to controversial topics and take sides.
I am a digital artist myself and have used digital tools for many years, including AI, to assist me in my artistic process. That doesn't mean I support the bad practices that many visual AI have been built on at the present moment, but I also think it would would be incredibly shortsighted to ban an entire artistic medium based on a kneejerk moral panic. This is compounded by the fact that humans are often poor at telling the difference between AI-generated art and fully original paintings, or collage and photobashing techniques; I agree with the earlier point that a ban would only promote bullying and witch-hunting behavior toward artists, and create an atmosphere of accusation and distrust.
This isn't a defense of the ethical problems which concern AI art, but you could also make similar arguments for a number of other art forms or content which are already accepted on the site. Cohost is also not an image provider in the first place, so it also doesn't really make sense to compare it to a stock image website in terms of policy.
Regarding the concern of art theft, I don't see how it's any different from existing rules. If someone believes that their work has been stolen, they can report the offending user. I don't think it necessarily matters whether the theft is due to tracing, reposting or AI being used to alter it, all of which should fall under the same blanket of thieving behavior.