> Having an artist simply make you a logo like that on commission, if not transformative, could get them sued. I agree with that. But then at what point does

> Having an artist simply make you a logo like that on commission, if not transformative, could get them sued. I agree with that. But then at what point does AI output becomes transformative versus not? No one owns the 1960's comic art style. But did mentioning "Archie" somehow make a difference? I don't think it does. I might be wrong. So I don't understand how it becomes a problem once a computer does it versus a human. If it's a legal issue, then I might be more persuaded. If it's an ethical issue only, well... this can be thrown on top of the heap of ethical issues businesses have long ignored -- and your arguments is screaming into the wind, as it were. I think if you argue for UBI, or some kind of remuneration then we can argue about who deserves it. Truck Drivers who lose there jobs to AI? Open Source Software Engineers? Artists? Writers? Normally this would normally be served by things like unemployment insurance in the US, but we as a society hate freeloaders. I think with UBI or something similar we could have more people doing things they enjoy, so maybe we would have more artists, rather than less. But again, that would be, socialism, which we also hate.