Or how stuck in your ways or closed minded you are.
Don't shoot the messenger, I'm only showing you the fundamentals of how AI generators works(tried to, it didn't hit home). This is why I opted out of the AI image discussion above here, as you have failed to grasp the basics which makes this "discussion" a small waste of time.
And yet here you still are, being as obnoxious and closed minded as usual, failing to grasp that your opinion isn't a 'fact'.
The "cataclysm" being lawmakers stating that AI content providers must pay royalties for every piece they use for training.
I don't see it happening. The legality of the whole thing isn't on the side of the artists strong enough to make a case. They will need to show that work is being copied nearly outright, sold as and profited from as a wholesale fake. Here are some bit taken from explanations of 'derivative' art.
...include major copyrightable elements of a first...
Making minor changes or additions of little substance to a preexisting work will not qualify the work as a new version for copyright purposes.
Originality of a derivative work means any variation of an original work which is sufficient to render the derivative work distinguishable from its prior work in any meaningful manner.
The vast majority of AI art doesn't qualify as those. It's also subjective to a good degree in the first place, but in a legal matter it would need to be fairly obvious (and maybe detrimental to the original artist to qualify as well).
