Haha, AI can't do $THING

> Actually, the interesting thing about art is that humans will produce it even if they don't get paid for it.

Some will. Others more-or-less reluctantly decide that the choice between food on the table and paint on the canvas / chisel on the marble / take-your-pick must by necessity prefer the former.

We might well remember that art pre-dates copyright by quite a bit. We invented copyright because it was deemed to be useful.

Then we extended it, both in duration and reach, beyond the point where public opinion could care less about it. (If a pirated movie is more useful than the official DVD, as the latter contains non-skippable FBI warnings, trailers to unrelated content, and other nonsense, why should I buy it? Why should copyright last a whopping 70 years after the creator's death? etc.etc.etc.)

… and now we have AI and yet another heap of copyright conflagrations. On one side there's pirated text used as training input. On the other side we have copyright zealots who allow people the right to re-mix existing art and create something "new" but deny that a computer can do the same thing with essentially the same input.

No wonder that we don't even speak the same language when we debate this stuff, let alone reach some sort of consensus.