> I can understand not wanting models that have been trained on questionably sourced data, but otherwise they're opposing essentially a UX change, not based on UX concerns but on ideological fears.

"If you ignore their biggest, their primary, concern, their other concerns seem almost trivial".

▲

hgoel 10 hours ago | parent [-]

I literally said I understand if the training data sourcing is their primary concern.

▲

make3 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

he meant that that's not the primary concern. the sourcing of the data is a red herring, they care about losing their ability to make a living doing the thing that they love that is so central to their identity

▲

FireBeyond 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I think I'm not sure how to parse your statement... I don't think there'd be much care for (or need for) the UX change if it wasn't for the whole ideological/valid fear about training AI on creative works? But it has been a long day, so I apologize.

	▲	hgoel 10 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I've been all over the place with my thoughts, so it's fair for you to be unsure of how to parse what I said. When making my initial post, I was thinking "this is a coding model, it isn't an image/3d model generation model, so why do they care?". I further interpreted make3 as saying that 3d artists were opposed to AI in general because they view any AI use as trending towards taking away their jobs. So, what I meant when I said '... otherwise ...' wasn't trying to dismiss the data sourcing concern, but more like "I understand if the data sourcing is the concern, but you (make3) seem to be saying it's about the use of AI in general (ie even if, hypothetically, an ethically sourced training dataset was used for a model), which feels like a weird restriction to me". That was when I added the edit to my initial post.