pearl clutchers never cared about whether artists prefer ubiquity over obscurity. I forsee a cc license that explicitly opts into model training, and the whiners unable to distinguish between that, endorsing all model training, or actual generated content. to them it will all be called slop.

Remarkably sane https://creativecommons.org/ai-and-the-commons/cc-signals/implementation/

we give, we take, we give again, and we are all in this together.

No, the AI megacorps only steal and then make you pay to use their illegal and unethical services. How naive is this?

Why do I feel like almost no artists are going to use this new Creative Commons license and would prefer the Supreme Court to rule on this case?

Because few artists use CC as-is, because they have a petit bourgeoise mindset and are largely cutthroat narcissists who only care about "making it". I hope sincerely the breadline teaches them a lesson.

There are many open sourced locally executable free generative models available.

Oh, I didn't know that. Models were people have actually actively consented to their data being used for it (not "Wikipedia is CC so it's fine")?

I imagine not, though I haven't looked into it.