why do we even call it theft or pretend that any artist arrived at ideas without inspiration?

For humans the inspiration can be something else than the medium to use. Watching reality can provide inspiration for creating a video. And I'm pretty sure that's wher most inspiration comes from. It cannot for AI. Of course in a world where everything exists AI doesn't need inspiration from other sources.

It can for AI, it is consuming and mixing in training trail cam images, etc. that weren't composed shots.

That's not at all what the other poster was saying.

Then what was it saying? It said that humans can take inspiration from outside art, from the real world. You can do the same thing with AI by training it on pictures from the real world.

Bill Clinton has stated he was inspired to be president after a trip to the white house in his youth.

People have been inspired to write about subject matter because of their experiences.

AI takes lots of things that currently exist and mixNmatch.

It's not nearly the same thing.

> It's not nearly the same thing.

why not? Just because people take in experiences slowly, via senses, doesn't mean that an AI isn't replicating that learning via a fast method.

Do you believe that GPT-3 is going to want to become president after visiting the whitehouse?

If you answer no, then you must necessarily admit it's different.

It can do a lot of things, but in the end it's still just a glorified function.

Always back to the same debate then. Why aren't human minds glorified functions, that perhaps deserve their glory a bit more than current state of AI? Obviously they're not currently equivalent. But obviously there are similarities.

A gocart and a sedan have a lot of similarities, but only one of them is legal to drive on the highway.

That could describe the entirety of art history.