How exactly is a generated image not novel? You're not going to get the same image twice with the same prompt. Everything it generates will be original. It's not like they're just providing you with an existing image.

And still the argument I'm hearing is that it's fine for humans to use artistic works without consent or credit just because it's a human doing it.

Just because the underlying processes are different doesn't mean the two are functionally different.

I also think it's funny because I'm betting the Venn diagram of people who think AI using publicly available artwork to train on is bad and people who think piracy is good is almost a single circle.

Alrighty, so generative AI works by giving it training data and it transforms that data and then generates something based on a prompt and how that prompt is related to the training data it has.

That's not functionally different from how commissioned human artists work. They train on publicly available works, their brain transforms and stores that data and uses it to generate a work based on a prompt. They even often directly use a reference work to generate their own without permission from the original artist.

Like I said, there are tons of valid criticisms against Gen AI, but this criticism just boils down to "AI bad because it's not a human exploiting other's work."

And all of this is ignoring the fact that ethically trained Gen AI models exist.