I don't see how what I am saying is incoherent, and I see we got off on the wrong foot here, so in the spirit of discussion please allow me to rephrase more sim

I don't see how what I am saying is incoherent, and I see we got off on the wrong foot here, so in the spirit of discussion please allow me to rephrase more simply and neutrally: 1. AI art is still extremely new, and it's unclear what direction the law will take regarding it (if any) 2. Artists are likely to be significantly impacted by this, therefore it is probable that there will be some debate about the legal environment for this AI art. It won't necessarily be in favor of the artists, though I personally hope it will. 3. The law is hopefully aimed at making society better in some way. The definition of that is relative of course, but the spirit of the law is important, otherwise the entire edifice is pointless. 4. The AI art could be argued to be classified as merely transformative, but is regular transformative art likely to have the same impact on artists as AI art? Intuitively, we can probably tell that's not the case because the amount of effort and talent needed to generate AI art is incredibly low compared to the regular version and therefore the output will be vastly higher. The distribution, ease of production and other factors makes this an altogether different problem. 5. The prospect of AI art seems to be a bigger problem for artists than copyright infringement, because it can nuke sales/commissions or even types of artists (such as concept illustrators) in a way copyright infringement cannot. The market power of the 2D artist, which is the hard to reproduce ability to produce things in a very specific style, is gone. 6. Prompt users will deliberately use a reference to specific artists because they expect the result will be better than without. They understand that they are implicitly piggybacking on the work of the artist that led to the style being available in the model, to then use it for their own ends. If the artist had not worked in the way they did, the style would not be easily available in a few seconds. You would have to train for a long time to be able to replicate it, and your output would be very low (hence unproblematic) So in the end you have something that will greatly impact artists, more so than most threats to intellectual property that are currently covered by the law, and that leads me to believe that the law will change, and if it does not, that it should change. Naturally, it is possible to disagree.