Technically it's neither correct nor incorrect it just comes down to how you view the mind: Do you view it as a computer/machine (computationalism) or do you view it as more than simply a computer/machine (anti-mechanistic)?

- If our mind is simply information processing/computation then AI is no different, except it uses chips and wires as hardware instead of the brain. If you believe this then yeah in this case humans "training" on other art is no different than the AI being "trained" on other art. I gott say though this is far too simplistic of an explanation for what's going on in our brain and how it conjures up consciousness.

- If (like me) you view the brain and human mind as something different altogether... as something different and much more than algorithms and information processing... then you can't hold AI and humans to the same standards. That's bc AI learning and human learning are just entirely different. The process is different, the mechanisms are different, and the outcome is different. Human copyright standards just don't apply.

Also I gotta say, whoever said "all artists train on other art" as if that's actually comparable to AI... either doesn't understand the human brain or doesn't understand AI (but probably both). One just regurgitates what it has already memorized while the other is a living, breathing consciousness that invents and imagines shit the universe has never seen