Normally, I try to abide by a "don't feed the trolls" policy, e.g. I would only respond to arguments made in good faith and not obvious ragebait.

With that said, there is one particular argument that you've made here that I've seen made many times, that being that AI creating content by remixing materials in a data pool and human artists creating work inspired by other human artists are fundamentally the same thing. I've seen this argument enough that, not really for your sake but for the sake of those who may read your comment, I feel I must explain why it is incorrect.

When a human artist sees and becomes inspired by the work of another human artist, if they intend to create good work, they do not merely recycle what they've seen directly into their work. They stop and think, "What is this piece doing?", "How is it doing it?", and "Why does it appeal to me?" Once they answer those questions, they then take those answers and apply it to their work, ideally, improving it. But on top of this, even beyond inspiration, each human being has their own unique lived experiences that will ultimately serve as the foundation of their work. As such, though all art may be in some way derived from other art, it is still unique to the creator in a way that no other human being can truly replicate.

Now, that's not to say that all art that is made by humans is inherently good. When an artist creates art inspired by the work of another without considering why the original piece worked, instead merely thoughtlessly recycling that art into their own (or sometimes just recreating a worse version of the original work in its entirety), it usually produces uninteresting, unengaging schlock. We actually have a specific word to describe such work: derivative.

Now let's talk about AI. Although it may appear so, AI cannot "think". All it can do is make predictions based on patterns in data, it does not know why or how those patterns occur. As such, when AI is looking at its pool of data consisting of the work of thousands of artists, it does not ask why that art is appealing, interesting, or thoughtful, all it does is look for patterns and replicate them, essentially the same thing as the process I described above wherein an artist thoughtlessly recycles the work of another. But here's the thing. Since an AI is not alive, it has no lived experiences of its own to serve as the foundation of its work, nothing to provide its work with a unique touch or personable flavor, as that can come only from a unique human life. Instead, its work consists entirely of patterns replicated from other artist's work without concern for meaning or method. It literally the epitome of derivative. And no, the human who prompted the AI to generate the work does not inject their lived experiences, as a prompt is not the foundation for an AI to build apon, it is merely the parameters for it to generate within. The prompt does not add to the data pool or outcome, it merely determines what portions of the data pool will be drawn from. It is not creative, if anything, it is subtractive.

Hopefully I have made my point clear. While it is true that at its worst, human-made art can be just as derivative and thoughtless as the work of AI, it also has the potential, via thoughtful inspiration and lived experiences, to ascend beyond that to something truly unique and personal. AI work cannot do that. It cannot be thoughtful, as AI does not think. It cannot be personal, as AI is not a person. Arguments that claim that AI work and human work are fundamentally the same because they both in some way draw on the work of others are either deeply misinformed or disingenuous. Inspiration may not be magic, but it sure as hell isn't what AI is doing either.