"To clarify: AI doesn't literally sample art like my example - it uses information about art. This is just a visual example of the principle. The point being that AI depending on pre-existing art means that regulation on its databases is required."

(Zed Edge, 2022)

Zed Edge (@ZedEdge) on X provides a visual that strongly shows a mixed perspective heald by many artists on the matter of AI art, and even displays how AI generation can be used as insparation. 

Edge claims in the comments that "Conceptually, I actually think AI art is really exciting - allowing anyone to visualize their ideas." He then make the statement that "But exploiting the time and effort of artists without permission or payment is not the way to do it. AI art databases must be voluntary." (2022)

On his post, Edge opens the discussion into the comments, as an effort to go into more detail for those who have questions and feedback in the comments.

One of said comments asks the question, "So it’s like remixing a song isn’t it? Still wouldn’t be plagiarism."

Edge contests the question and statement by stating "That's a great comparison, since I'm pretty sure remixing songs is in fact illegal. It's just doesn't seem to be because for big record labels, taking down every remixed track isn't worth their time. But for indie artists, it could be."

The commenter then expresses understanding after doing background reserch and responds "I see. Even if the work is derivative the copyright owner would still have to give the okay to be legal," along with evidence of further reserch.

This iteraction between individuals is a good example of how calm interactions with reasoning, no attacks towards any individuals can help convince people. By changing the words into different more familiar terms (the music remixing) the explanation of the affect (of theft) was able to be provided.