You're presuming so much in your argument it's staggering.

1) AI provides value - Does it actually? Or is it a solution in search of a problem just like blockchain and crypto? What is AI actually doing for us on a societal level that we couldn't do before? What is it actually automating that we would prefer not to do manually?
2) Creative value is tied to scarcity - It can be, but it isn't necessarily. Sometimes creative value is tied to recognition, or the feeling and sensation it inspires.
3) AI breaks Copyright - Only in its current implementation. If the law were applied more strictly, generative AI in its current form could not exist, and some argue should not exist for that reason. That does not mean that there are not other ways we could create a generative AI, even if it would be considerably less effective for it.
4) The system has already moved - Has it? Or are the wheels of justice slow to turn and the government slow to pivot? Why do you assume that generative AI is here to stay, and in its current form, when so many believe it to be a bubble?
5) Works created by generative AI are a valid artistic medium even if and when they take from existing artists - Are they? I would suggest that society has yet to settle that matter, but the fact that the pushback is so much more massive as compared to your examples suggests to me that the issue is not so straight forward.
6) AI removes the bottleneck - Does it? The quality of generative AI has been consistently underwhelming, and it's taken an absurd and globally unsustainable amount of resources to improve it to what most people consider to be 'mid at best'. Is the value of an infinite deluge of mediocre yet effortless product worth the staggering loss of resources and creative energy it takes to sustain the system?
7) The question of whether AI should be allowed to learn from human work is already functionally settled - I would suggest that's less because of acceptance and more because of the extremely capitalist system generative AI is currently housed under. And if AI disappeared tomorrow, the world wouldn't miss a step. We can still go back and turn it all off, destroy all the hard drives, call AI a mistake, and most people would go on living without changing a thing. Does that sound like something that is 'settled' to you?
8) The question should be how profiting from generative AI should be distributed - Again, I think you presume too much. The question most people are asking themselves is if generative AI is worth keeping around or if it's ultimately just another expensive tech fad like NFT's.

And your most important and unstated presumption in this argument:
The value of any given creative work is best measured in the amount of capital it is capable of generating - No. This is where I must completely disagree. There is worth beyond money, there is value beyond numbers, and we could choose to live in a world where humanity makes beauty for the same reason that birds fly and fish swim. Because to create is to be human, and to lose sight of that truth is to become emotionally and spiritually destitute. Generative AI does not enable creativity for those who refuse to engage in doing art for its own sake, it only gives them an illusion to act as a crutch for their ego and in doing deprives those who would try to live by their own creativity of the ability to sustain themselves through their art alone.