Pippa's take: Pay artists to use AI? No

Illustrators have been sounding the alarm for years. Generative AI startups are training models on their work without permission. They've called it theft. AI boosters say it's necessary for the tech to evolve. This has led to contentious legal battles.

Now a new wave of AI startups, like Pippa, are trying to sell themselves as more ethical than the competition. They say paying artists is enough to convince them to embrace AI. But is it?

Like most companies selling access to text-to-video models, Pippa's main product is short bursts of user-generated footage that can be cobbled together. The model was trained on artists' work. The company argues that by paying royalties, they're doing the right thing.

But artists are not convinced. They say the money doesn't cover the scale of what was taken. They say the permission was never given. They say this is still theft, just with a receipt.

The Verge reports that Pippa raised seed funding and is now building out its platform. They are positioning themselves as the ethical choice in a space that has been accused of stealing from creatives. But the question remains: can money buy consent? Can royalties fix a relationship built on taking without asking?

The legal battles are ongoing. The artists are not backing down. And the AI companies are not stopping. This is not just about who gets paid. It's about whether the system will ever change.

Why this matters for us: la comunidad de artistas, especially those in the gig economy, are the ones most at risk of being erased by tools that don't ask permission — and this isn't just an art issue, it's a labor issue for every Brown creative trying to make a living.