I really hate to be this guy, I think, but I feel like you are not understanding the point here. Also can you please stop mentioning diamond man? I'm only mentioning copyright because that's often attached to this topic.
The reason why I've been mentioning copyright infringement is because the concept of "theft" via copying came from intellectual property law, and it was never founded as a human right to merely own information. If it's not about copyright at all, then what is it then? How can you claim "theft" when you can't own information? The idea that we should just make up a rule against certain freedom of expression by making mutant "moral" worse "Intellectual Property" like ideology and then shaming people for not agreeing is exactly the same as deciding that one cannot support the concept of an automobile because 'think of the horse jobs' when nobody was ever morally obligated to pay for horse renters in the first place, or saying that people shouldn't be allowed to copy certain art styles because 'reasons'.
If you want to make an argument about "ethics" involving AI art, then the only main legit way to do so is to go against it if: It circumvents around copyright infringement in general and harms the purpose of it, and/or actually another type of harm or harms that would be fairly be argued as unethical like falsifying history for example. The reason why fan art was brought up is because I often hear the reasoning saying it's "theft!" but knowing the concept of that originating from the concept of IP law, and since you can't morally own certain public domain content, the fan art comparison was fair because the "theft" part is "without permission", AKA, the same concept. "AI art is wrong because it's theft" clearly deserved the comparison because it's OFTEN THAT ARGUMENT. Some of your argument seems to be a little different than saying it's "wrong PURELY because it's without permission/"theft"" if I assume right but not everyone said that. By the way I mention circumvention because I hear copyright has yet to update to cover AI art or something like that. I don't respect emotional baseless arguments, so I'm not going to give a rat's ass about those who don't care about the fan art comparison when they keep doing this to themselves. Don't want to be compared with fanart, then making an argument against AI art purely because it uses a picture without permission is not the way to go then. If the argument is "Well, it's using pictures without permission and the usage without permission is actually (with proof or fairly predicted) causing harm with it." THEN the general fan-art "whataboutism" is crap.
Also, I am not flat-out taking the side of the "AI tech bros", I was just defending some cases of AI art, where it's done innocently in private or innocently involving innocent public domain art (where's the theft?). Some of this is probably just concept by the way. I even heard of an AI tool that is only meant to use certain licenses and certain public domain. I can easily imagine that yes, there are non-profit uses of it to certain degrees maybe. Also despite your purpose, you still used AI art under the "It's ok because I'm shaming it!" attitude, though I can't really tell if you admitted a fault on that. I don't really know what the artist said about AI by the way and when it was.
"who repeatedly defends bestiality and pedophilia."
I can't remember the name of the fallacy by clearly using emotional tactics like that as if it helps your argument because, I'm not a fan of it. You're not really helping with that and all it does is literally add super inflammable gas to this room. It's *sighs* unethical.
I really hate to be this guy, I think, but I feel like you are not understanding the point here. Also can you please stop mentioning diamond man? I'm only mentioning copyright because that's often attached to this topic.
The reason why I've been mentioning copyright infringement is because the concept of "theft" via copying came from intellectual property law, and it was never founded as a human right to merely own information. If it's not about copyright at all, then what is it then? How can you claim "theft" when you can't own information? The idea that we should just make up a rule against certain freedom of expression by making mutant "moral" worse "Intellectual Property" like ideology and then shaming people for not agreeing is exactly the same as deciding that one cannot support the concept of an automobile because 'think of the horse jobs' when nobody was ever morally obligated to pay for horse renters in the first place, or saying that people shouldn't be allowed to copy certain art styles because 'reasons'.
If you want to make an argument about "ethics" involving AI art, then the only main legit way to do so is to go against it if: It circumvents around copyright infringement in general and harms the purpose of it, and/or actually another type of harm or harms that would be fairly be argued as unethical like falsifying history for example. The reason why fan art was brought up is because I often hear the reasoning saying it's "theft!" but knowing the concept of that originating from the concept of IP law, and since you can't morally own certain public domain content, the fan art comparison was fair because the "theft" part is "without permission", AKA, the same concept. "AI art is wrong because it's theft" clearly deserved the comparison because it's OFTEN THAT ARGUMENT. Some of your argument seems to be a little different than saying it's "wrong PURELY because it's without permission/"theft"" if I assume right but not everyone said that. By the way I mention circumvention because I hear copyright has yet to update to cover AI art or something like that. I don't respect emotional baseless arguments, so I'm not going to give a rat's ass about those who don't care about the fan art comparison when they keep doing this to themselves. Don't want to be compared with fanart, then making an argument against AI art purely because it uses a picture without permission is not the way to go then. If the argument is "Well, it's using pictures without permission and the usage without permission is actually (with proof or fairly predicted) causing harm with it." THEN the general fan-art "whataboutism" is crap.
Also, I am not flat-out taking the side of the "AI tech bros", I was just defending some cases of AI art, where it's done innocently in private or innocently involving innocent public domain art (where's the theft?). Some of this is probably just concept by the way. I even heard of an AI tool that is only meant to use certain licenses and certain public domain. I can easily imagine that yes, there are non-profit uses of it to certain degrees maybe. Also despite your purpose, you still used AI art under the "It's ok because I'm shaming it!" attitude, though I can't really tell if you admitted a fault on that. I don't really know what the artist said about AI by the way and when it was.
"who repeatedly defends bestiality and pedophilia."
I can't remember the name of the fallacy by clearly using emotional tactics like that as if it helps your argument because, I'm not a fan of it. You're not really helping with that and all it does is literally add super inflammable gas to this room. It's *sighs* unethical.