It is different simply because it’s not a human. We can and often do assign laws that affect the automation of something a human can do. For example, installing

It is different simply because it’s not a human. We can and often do assign laws that affect the automation of something a human can do. For example, installing a device on a firearm that repeatedly pulls the trigger creates a machine gun that is highly restricted legally, regardless of whether a human can easily pull the trigger at the same rate. Further, just because we can talk about how artists, at a high level do the same thing as AI image generators, the actual mechanism is not exactly the same and is therefore still subject to distinct regulation. Even if you were able to somehow establish that computer programs should have the same rights as people (since they are made and used by people,) you’re still not out of the woods. Much debate remains about what creativity and originality means when talking about human generated content in an IP sense, and adding the programmatic aspect doesn’t simplify things. (eg The Sina Qua Non of Copyright is Uniqueness, Not Originality https://tiplj.org/wp-content/uploads/Volumes/v20/v20p327.pdf https://tiplj.org/wp-content/uploads/Volumes/v20/v20p327.pdf)