You simply don’t have to compensate someone so analyze public data.

To call this simply “analysis” is wildly disingenuous. AI isn’t simply offering data about those works, they are using them to create effective replacements for those works, at expense of those artists’ careers. Even calling them “public” is reductive, because being publicly displayed in some manner does not mean they ceased to be copyrighted works.

You insist a lot of people’s right to self-expression, but restricting some manners of training AI doesn’t mean the people can’t express themselves. Not only they could still use any other tool, they could simply get permission from the creators or use Public Domain works to train.

Why is it having to get permission for using works in AI training considered such a violation of people’s rights? Just because older laws were written without consideration for the way AI functions (obviously)?

We also restrict the use of cameras in certain ways and yet photography is a flourishing medium. In a way one could call a camera an analysis tool too, but I don’t think arguing this sort of technicality is productive.

Still, you don’t seem to consider that the artists driven out of the market by AI will have their capability of expression stifled, simply by not being able to focus on creating.

If I can’t use legal wording, technical details, or philosophy, how am I supposed to be able to explain?

Because you are using those to argue around the situation of the artists whose work was used, and still you will not offer a single word about their situation. Instead you will call them “abusers” for trying to preserve their livelihoods. I did offer you arguments why the law is lacking, but I’m tired of arguing how human rights take precedent over tools, that comparing AI with human creativity is simplistic and that whatever may be the inner workings of AIs, that doesn’t change the material effects of their use. I’m pretty sure I had those arguments with you in particular already.

Which is why I want to get to the point: “What about the artists’ livelihoods?”

Any other explanation that doesn’t address this is lacking a crucial aspect. Considering how much AI had to rely on original works it’s strange that the source of those original works is not even given any consideration.

But back to this again:

You simply don’t have to compensate someone so analyze public data. That would be like handing someone a flyer for lessons and then trying to collect a fee because they got good at the same kind of thing you do.

See, this is the kind of talk that gets me incensed, and which makes your talk of “manipulative language” ironic and disingenuous. Are you really going to call the artist’s role “handing someone a flyer for lessons”? Not even the lesson proper, since their work is the reference material? There is no possible way such an analogy could be made in good faith, it reveals a profound disregard for the role of the artists in all this, so much for standing in the shoulders of giants. No surprise you want to call artists seeking to protect themselves “abusers” too. It doesn’t seem to me like the words of someone honestly interested in candid, open-minded and respectful discussion.