Illustration by Tag Hartman-Simkins/Futurism. Source: Getty Images
slip, ship of theseus – There’s a new paradoxical thought experiment in town.
Some power users of generative AI have become so comfortable with their new tools – especially image-generating ones – that they now feel entitled to specific cues they use to overcome slop, such as total technology Was not based on the work of human artists that was swallowed without consent.
Consider Amira Zairi, a self-proclaimed “AI teacher” and “ambassador” for Adobe, LeonardoAI, and TripoAI, who posted a scathing statement This week ex-he reached 49,000 followers on Twitter. His complaint? Others were “stealing” his unique AI signals.
“‘Create your own prompts’ is not advice. It’s basic integrity,” Zary wrote, using syntax that reads suspiciously like the text generated by ChatGPT. “To be honest, I’m fed up. Changing a few words, renaming the prompt, or reshaping it a bit doesn’t make it yours, the idea is still the same, the vibe is the same, and the results are obviously the same.”
“And no, it’s not about one or two people, and it didn’t happen even once!!!” Zairi continued. “It’s actually easier to create your own signs than to copy someone else’s work! Try it.”
While Zairi is the latest AI hunter to bark about stolen signals, she’s certainly not the first. Examples abound, such as daily dot told Back in December: Consider a Poster who condemned About the “quick thieves in the AI art community” or the “AI artist” who went after someone followed his signal “Without even knowing it’s mine.”
There is also a niche market for preventive tools among cybersecurity developers. In the late 2024, an AI researcher named Xinyue Shen developed a device It’s called PromptShield to protect against so-called “instant theft”.
This is all very rich, considering that all of these AI tools were trained on a repository of human-made art and media without permission. To create generic AI models, tech companies systematically scour large amounts of copyright art From the web without consent, license, or compensation to the artists. This data is then used to train generative AI models that synthesize and churn out derivative images, resulting in what some ethicists argue labor exploitation,
Simply put, the AI brothers are angry that people are stealing their recipes for the plagiarism machine – an irony that’s very hard to ignore.
“What you’re describing and complaining about is the core function of the technology you’re advocating, which is no different than that,” Digital Artist Rory Blank replied Under Amira Zairi’s post. “Hope that helps.”
More on AI: AI researchers say they have invented spells that are too dangerous to release to the public
