Your comment demonstrates a complete lack of both reading comprehension and basic logic, as every single claim made was already either refuted by me, or isn't a logical argument at all.

> Entitlement is expecting a royalty from someone who saw your publicly posted art and learned anatomy from it.

As I already pointed out, it's extremely clear that AI are not humans nor are remotely comparable to them (objectively from both a physical and a functional perspective, and morally from the perspective of the vast majority of people holding on to wildly different moral systems, both inconsistent and consistent), so this is completely irrelevant, and additionally not what I claimed (also known as a "strawman fallacy").

Additionally, it is objectively not entitlement to expect payment from someone who consumes your content. If someone posts a learning resource as a paid course on a platform like Udemy, then paying them is morally required - you have to obey the license that the creator makes the content accessible under. Furthermore, the vast majority of the content publicly posted on the internet is not done so under the assumption that it will be used for AI training data - if someone publishes their work for other humans to view for free, that does not extend to a license for AI developers to use it to train for free, which is exactly what the article is about.

> Selfishness is attempting to sabotage it so the learner is mislead into learning wrong anatomy.

See above.

> Lack of a consistent moral system is believing these are variably wrong or right to do when it's a meat neural net or a digital neural net in question.

Objectively incorrect. I can describe a moral system that's non-arbitrary and consistent and perfectly delineates the boundaries between humans and artificial intelligences, and the rights ascribed to both. You cannot. (if you think you can, you're welcome to put it here, and I'll show you why it's inconsistent and/or arbitrary)

Further demonstrating the issues with reading comprehension, you missed/ignored the statement that I made that "It's not even accurate to say that humans have "neural nets" in their brains, because human cognition [is] not understood." which neuters your claims.

> And finally, thinking any such loom-stomping tantrum

The only person making emotionally manipulative fallacies is you. I've articulated my points logically - you've made multiple fallacies, logical mistakes, and your entire first comment was emotional pleading without a shred of logic or reason.

> will meaningfully halt progress and let you keep art creation in exactly the same state as the past

Yet another strawman argument and/or reading comprehension failure. I never claimed that it was possible, necessary, or desirable to keep art creation in the same state. You really didn't read my comment before replying.

> is a fundamental ignorance of economics

...and so this isn't valid. However, I can point out the mistake that you initially made - you believe it's economically viable for those training AI to steal the work of artists and use it to replace them. It isn't.

Your entire comment reads like an AI response that attempted to mirror the structure of mine without any of the understanding, or the ability to make coherent arguments.