what do you see as the difference between a person seeing your work, Ingesting it into their brain to reprogram their brain, allowing them to make parallel works, and an AI ingesting your work as part of its training data?

Our current IP laws prohibit making money on exact copies of your work. That is not what AI does.

We live in a capitalist word. Almost every use of every technology is unethical.

But people hold a special grudge against AI.

Same example as before. Is United Healthcare use AI for denying treatment it got pointed out. If they used a Java app and traditional algorithms to do so, it's not the technology which we point out, don't we?

If AI is forced in windows 11 by Microsoft, it's pointed out. But if they force Teams, we don't hate communication applications, don't we? We don't say that communication applications are bad and unethical. Even if most of them are as property of big tech as AI is.

Now the question is, why AI is getting this special treatment?

In order to get the answer I traces where the hated started. There was AI before. And the first by jump in generative AI was not hated, quite the contrary it got plenty of praise. But then Image generation came... And it rubbed artist the wrong way, thus the anti-AI movement started.

Also I looked for other correlations with people against AI. And I found that they tend to be against any new technology from the last 5-10 years or so.

So that's how I found the answer of that question. Just looking at the origins and looking at who had those opinions.

I have found that the genesis of most things is the key to really understand them. And this genesis really explains why if an AI takes workers jobs it's hated and pointed out, but if a python script does the same it's not.

I'm an open minded person. If I get a better answer to that question that bugs me, I would reconsider my position. But I'm yet to read any rational answer on:

Why AI gets a special treatment when judging its unethical uses when compared with any other technology also being unethically used by corporations and capitalism?

Btw, being creative is not excuse to believe in Intelectual Property. Plenty of creative people do not believe in Private Property and/or Intelectual Property. I can make an example out of myself on this, as I make small videogames for a hobby, which is a form of art, and all of them all open source, I didn't even put a license on them of any kind. So being creative does not need to equal believing in Intelectual Property, same as working with means of production does not equal believing in the private ownership of those means of production. What you do and what you believe in can be, and often are, separated.