Most complicated debates can be reduced to their simplest truth if we are willing to be honest. The AI debate is no different.
We have been here before.
This moment mirrors the MP3 wars almost perfectly. Different technology. Larger scale. Same ethical question.
Back then, proponents of free MP3 distribution argued that compressed files were “lower quality” and therefore not equivalent to the original work. Others claimed piracy helped artists by spreading awareness and exposure. Those arguments were never really about quality or promotion. They were about easing conscience.
Strip all of that away and the question was always simple.
Did the artist create the work with the intention of being compensated for it?
The answer was obviously yes.
Once you accept that, everything else collapses. If you take someone’s work and use it without compensating them, you are stealing from them. No amount of technical framing changes that.
The AI debate follows the same pattern.
We talk about datasets, scale, abstraction, and emergent outputs. We argue that models do not “store” works, that training is not copying, or that the outputs are transformative. We hide behind complexity and novelty. But again, that is background noise.
AI systems scrape human-made work. That work was created with the intention of compensation. When it is used without consent or compensation to generate value for others, the ethical breach is the same.
It is still theft.
A common defense is that the data was “public-facing.” That phrase does a lot of heavy lifting without ever being clearly defined.
If I operate an online portfolio or an online store featuring my artwork, both explicitly intended to generate income and support my family, does visibility magically transform that work into free training material? Public-facing does not mean public property. Visibility does not imply consent. Presence does not equal permission.
Let’s extend this further.
If I enter a rendering competition to win software, tools, or professional recognition that help me perform my craft, does participation reclassify my work as freely extractable? At what point does simply engaging in a digital ecosystem become implied consent to have one’s labor absorbed, analyzed, and monetized by others?
This logic does not stop at artwork.
Personal likeness, identity, style, and association introduce even deeper layers of intellectual property and ethical concern. If we accept that public visibility nullifies ownership, we are not just redefining copyright. We are dismantling authorship itself.
The issue is not new technology.
The issue is whether the arrival of new technology grants those who profit from it the authority to retroactively reset ethical boundaries. I do not believe most proponents intend that outcome, but intention does not negate consequence. That is where the logic leads.
Now comes the uncomfortable truth.
The genie is out of the bottle. I doubt we will ever fully track original material or fairly distribute royalties at scale. That does not make the principle wrong. It only makes enforcement difficult.
Difficulty does not excuse dishonesty.
What is most troubling is not the technical challenge, but the rhetorical gymnastics used to justify behavior that would be condemned in any other context. Automation does not absolve responsibility. Scale does not erase authorship. Abstraction does not neutralize ethics.
If we cannot undo what has already happened, then our responsibility shifts.
We should stop trying to justify being thieves and redirect that energy toward solving the real problem. How do we build systems that are transparent about what they consume, who they benefit, and who pays the price? How do we preserve human agency, authorship, and dignity in a world where replication is trivial but creation is not?
Consent should have been part of this discussion from the beginning. That ship may have sailed, but we should at least be honest about the magnitude of what has already occurred and acknowledge the heist for what it is.
At the very least, we owe each other honesty.
If AI is built on human work, say so.
If creators are displaced, acknowledge it.
If compensation is owed but infeasible, admit that too.
Ethics do not disappear just because enforcement is hard.
This work reflects a CAHDD Level 2 (U.N.O.) — AI-Assisted Unless Noted Otherwise creative process.
Human authorship: Written and reasoned by Russell L. Thomas (with CAHDD™ editorial oversight). All final decisions and approvals were made by the author.
AI assistance: Tools such as Grammarly, ChatGPT, and PromeAI were used for research support, grammar/refinement, and image generation under human direction.
Images: Unless otherwise captioned, images are AI-generated under human art direction and conform to CAHDD Level 4 (U.N.O.) standards.
Quality control: Reviewed by Russell L. Thomas for accuracy, tone, and context.
Method: Computer Aided Human Designed & Developed (CAHDD™).