I think most of the kerfuffle stems from two misconceptions: (1) Many people think AIs just reproduce and recompose chunks of their training data. As such, the

I think most of the kerfuffle stems from two misconceptions: (1) Many people think AIs just reproduce and recompose chunks of their training data. As such, they believe that if an AI produces something "in the style of Artist X", it is copying Artist X's work directly. In reality, of course, that's not how neural networks function, and this is far more akin to the network taking inspiration from Artist X to produce its own work, which I'm pretty sure is perfectly safe, IP law-wise. (2) Many people are afraid these AIs will destroy artists' niche in society and/or jobs, and so they're trying to denigrate the AIs and nerf what they're allowed to do. But the printing press didn't remove authors, calculators didn't remove mathematicians, medicines didn't remove doctors, etc. These AIs are merely a new tool for anyone, including artists, to use, and human artists can (and, I think, should) work alongside the AIs rather than fear them. The AIs are exceptional, and will only improve, but they learn from humans. The fact that Artist X paints something doesn't take away from the art Artist Y makes. There is value in almost all art.