I don’t get what is the bad or wrong part of his take here, except maybe slightly cringe to “entrust his copyright” to a big publisher, that itself is a can of worms.

But there is no solution either, its either we achieve complete radical destruction of everything AI related(having this bubble burst soon would also work but that is just a bet) or some shitty ass compromise, there is no middle ground. He is also correct, every AI art advocate is definitely just looking to shortcut his way towards social acceptance at best or are just outright scammers and grifters looking to make their “big project” aka passive income garbage small business dream shit come true. They don’t care to understand that artists choose to be creative because they inherently enjoy the process. If just making art doesn’t make you happy then its not for you, pick another hobby or interest.

So again when it comes to the law take, nobody got any better solutions, the Chinese AI grifters(hopium abusers at best) say the same thing, oh its Chinese therefore magicaly the CPC will have more control i.e better laws even though it doesn’t stop Chinese tech industry from their own harmful practices e.g all the gambling and shit on mobile games is the most profitable industry.

Nobody got a better take on AI, IMO the lines are clear and its just sad we will most likely lose this fight to these shitty grifters unless we’re lucky and the bubble bursts soon. Whoever called him a lib is clueless, naive maybe, to hope the current status quo will solve it, but its either that or complete violent opposition to AI, he can’t obviously advocate for that.