"So wait, let's just stop and think about this for a minute. Web users like us are forbidden from using 'email extraction' apps that trawl and rapidly sift through thousands of websites to harvest all the publicly listed email addresses - which are effectively one of the most valuable proprietary 'currencies' a web-hussle can obtain for connecting to masses of like-minded recipients with direct campaign blitzing (or selling email lists to spammers and hackers). Many ISPs, mail clients and hosting servers have bans in place to block most of us from committing such a heinous act.

So how and why exactly, are super-funded, ultra powerful Ai tech-platforms allowed to carry out the same 'scraping' procedure across the entire internet, to collect their version of valuable data or media 'currency', involving our copyrighted photos, artwork, video, audio and text information, purely for their own reference and even commercial usage. How come they can perform wholesale 'data training', by mutating decades of our collective works en mass, to claim all the glory for presenting clever combinations of our original info back to us? Most of these platforms monetise our unwitting contributions back to us, through premium subscriptions or selling PAYG generative credit packs that allow users to process, share and download fantastical regurgitations of our own intellectual property.

Unless Ai platforms agree to credit all sources that contributed to each generative result, its quite insulting to think that they encourage users to treat the results of their prompts as their own, completely disregarding who else's work might be involved.

Bearing in mind that Ai enthusiasts now redirect a lot of their personal life or screen-minutes crafting prompts that instruct Ai what to create anyway, often only to receive one decent picture from fifty terrible ones. A process that I'm growing slightly suspicious of being churned out 'accidentally-on purpose', to devote more eyeball time and screen clicks, which amplifies the addiction to buying more credits!

I realise we can't stop this genie from leaving its bottle and totally appreciate the long overdue inevitability of our artificial intelligence fantasies. But if it's 'not what we do - but the way that we do it' that counts, then to allow such unethical and absurd practices to occur without the consent, credit or compensation to the original creators and rightful owners of the properties being remodelled and sold, the whole scheme appears to be a modern form of global colonisation through the continual theft of our personal labour, private resources and intellectual property. The use of such covert exploitation is surely another form of institutional slavery?

The only fair and reasonable, quick and easy, simple solution to this extremely bias and over-complicated situation, is for the identity of all Ai entities that garner and mutate our raw resources in this way, to fully disclose its own involvement using our 'Ai Disclosure' logo as a visual identifier stamp, rather than remaining anonymous and allowing the results to be passed off as another human's natural output. As well of course, as seeking consent from, giving credit to and providing compensation to the original creators who's materials have been used - through some sort of regulated digital IP royalty scheme or 'artistic rights' mechanism.

This is how we currently deal with the same issues with existing art, performance and intellectual rights in our natural world - so surely Ai platforms should be made to abide by the same practice governed by a similar set of amicable rules - it's not as if these multi-billion Ai investment empires can't afford to pay their dues! 

I really can't imagine Manly Scribe wanting an Ai generated 'fan-fiction' version of Harry Potter to be sold in the style of his own 'GodHed' book saga or TV show, without himself and JK Rowling benefiting from a share of those proceeds. In the same vein that, if anyone remixed a Mariah Carey or George Michael tune to sell downloads of, they'd have to identify the remix as their own work and wouldn't dare pretend the remix had been done by the original artists. Nor would they be allowed to sell such material without permission from, and licensing or royalty fees to the original artists, or their family estates!"