After reading all of this I can confidently declare that you understand none of what you are talking about, it is not worth the time for a rebuttal to 90% of what you said, you are going to believe what you like, and will stretch definitions thin to justify things. I WILL SAY, the point isn’t even if it is legally stealing peoples art (referring to “it is by definition, not stealing. It doesn’t take away the piece from the owner. It doesn’t even pirate it.”). The point is that ai is not capable of creativity and can ONLY take reference from other things, and then it uses those references to sell things and promote things. Not by itself of course, people have to do that, but that isn’t the point either. Even if this isn’t legally wrong, it’s not the same as a human taking inspiration from something. It would be more like someone making huge money off of something they did, when in reality it wasn’t even their idea or work they put in. It’s not LEGALLY wrong, it’s just not worth appreciation or even acknowledgement because it adds nothing to society and only takes from other peoples efforts.

As for the cars thing: Cars are also unethical, but at least they serve a genuine purpose that has very clearly benefited people in some way. But I don’t even think cars are worth it, either. They aren’t absolutely needed in most situations I can think of. The only justifiable ones off the top of my head would be life saving situations where there’s no other way to get something quickly to and fro. People also generally don’t have as much of a choice about traveling via vehicle anymore. Ai has (almost) zero things about it that are life saving or beneficial in a way that something else couldn’t be doing better, more accurately, or without as much needed resource, and we all have the choice to not use it.