If I am legally allowed to look at a million pictures to learn how to draw in different art styles, or even how to imitate a very certain art style, I basically train weights and biases in my brain.
If StabilityAi does the same with pictures available online, and release the weights and biases as Stable Diffusion, how is this different from humans learning from that data?
Law does not work by analogy. The difference is obvious - one of them is an automated computer system, the other is a human. As mentioned above it is not clear whether use/redistribution of this data is legal. But generally speaking, drawing an analogy between a piece of software and a human being is not an argument that will hold any weight in court.
This is the correct answer to any question such as the above. The law is an instrument of power. At the most basic level, its purpose is to uphold the power of a select group of individuals and institutions. The law's purpose is not to bend to logical arguments. If it did, those with the most complete grasp of logic would have the most power, undermining what the law is ultimately designed to do.
If I am legally allowed to look at a million pictures to learn how to draw in different art styles, or even how to imitate a very certain art style, I basically train weights and biases in my brain.
If StabilityAi does the same with pictures available online, and release the weights and biases as Stable Diffusion, how is this different from humans learning from that data?