General Discussion

You're trying to twist what I'm pointing out is actual harm to artists into talking about some artists not minding AI.

Theft of intellectual property is theft, no matter what people think of it.

Just as discrimination against women and minorities is discrimination even if you find people who are managing to do okay - or so they think - in a discriminatory system.

The existence of trad wives does not make misogyny okay, and the existence of a few artists who like AI does not create a bothsidesism where it's only a matter of personal opinion whether AI tools are unethical, and they can go on CNN and debate it and both sides are automatically equal.

The theft of all that intellectual property was an absolute wrong (and so is the continuing theft), and it cannot be detached from the AI companies and their AI tools and the people using them. It's completely irrelevant if a few artists are okay with it, because they have no right to okay the theft of other people's work.

Of course you're correct that you "never said anything about curing all of the ethical issues surrounding the use of AI." That's because you're avoiding talking about the theft, which is the fundamental ethical issue. Which is why using AI tools trained on that stolen work is a slap at the people whose intellectual property was stolen.

I don't care about the artists you mentioned. It's fine if some people want to applaud them (though I hope no one becomes chatbot-dependent or dazzled by jargon about transhumanism). But their careers don't and can't change or outweigh the harm done by that IP theft.