There is a decent point being made here about the way copyright law is inconstitently and selectively enforced depending on what works for the benefit of capital, but sadly a lot of the notes here are a perfect illustration of what I was saying the other day about how letting emotional backlash become the backbone of the anti-AI art position inevitably leads to uncritically spitting out some very reactionary things about copyright law.
I scrolled the notes for a bit and saw enough comments saying some variation of "Impossible to create without copyrighted material? That sounds like a glaring admission that these tools shouldn't exist then huehuehuehue ',:^)" to make my blood pressure spike.
Like if you're about to write an argument of the sort I implore you to think for two seconds about some other things it might be applicable to. Like I shouldn't have explain why "Can't exist without copyright infringement = Shouldn't exist" is a very dangerous idea to lend validity to for the sake of the Sick Dunk you're trying to score on all the AI techbros or whatever. If the thing you're about to say about AI art can be said about fanfic without changing anything about it I don't think you actually want to be saying it.