I largely believe that AI artwork should be treated 1:1 the same as human output. That is, in a non ideal scenario, if it creates are that wouldn't normally be

I largely believe that AI artwork should be treated 1:1 the same as human output. That is, in a non ideal scenario, if it creates are that wouldn't normally be subject to copyright, then the process (call it learning, call it mapping, call it baking for all I care) is largely irrelevant. In an ideal scenario, no artwork would be owned and we wouldn't have this discussion at all but alas. I don't see how valuing AI output is some kind of nihilistic devaluing of the human race, unless you already hold some kind of preconceived negative idea of machine learning models. Remember these models are built by humans. Its human ingenuity that's scaring the pants off the art industry at the moment. TALL men and women and others of INDUSTRY and BUSINESS are making COOL THINGS with VALUE.