Given how much software and other AI/computer vision improvements 3D content often relies on, it's weird to decide that the algorithm itself is unallowable.
"If you ignore their biggest, their primary, concern, their other concerns seem almost trivial".
So, what I meant when I said '... otherwise ...' wasn't trying to dismiss the data sourcing concern, but more like "I understand if the data sourcing is the concern, but you (make3) seem to be saying it's about the use of AI in general (ie even if, hypothetically, an ethically sourced training dataset was used for a model), which feels like a weird restriction to me". That was when I added the edit to my initial post.
AI is seen as an oppressor and a threat, and AI providers are seen as oppressors. It's understandable that people don't want to collaborate with their oppressors, either direct or by association. If you were a Jew, would you buy shoes from the Nazis just because you were individually safe from them at that moment? Or would you if you were of a minority they hadn't started exterminating yet? Or if they were not exactly the Nazis killing your people but some affiliated group?
This sounds extreme until you realize they are under threat of losing their likelihood for good.
They are right to not accept your inevitability point without a fight, this is a human thing that can be fought, revolutions have happened, and will continue to happen.
I don't necessarily agree with this but I do understand it.