Again. The printing press did not replace the writer, it did not even replace the scribe it just created new forms of media. But by this point I feel like you do not want to understand this, you don't want to learn so there is nothing I can tell you that would change your mind.
The difference is that the AI itself is a product, a product made from the property of people who did not consent to it's creation and redistribution. A product designed to replace the people who made the things that made it possible in the first place.
You are objectively wrong.
Not the same thing. This would be a relevant argument if you found out the artwork that was comissioned was traced over someone elses.
The question here is a matter of intent and consequences. Photographs do not replace portraits. And the job of a conductor is completely incomparable to comissioning art or music, the amount of musical knowledge you need to properly conduct for an orchestra is mindboggling.
I have yes to dabble to see if there is like an actual creative aspect to it, and in my opinion no there isn't. It's like a streamlined version of comissioning an artist only for free and the artists who's works were used to train these machines that are replacing them get nothing.
That if anything makes you a director not an artist. And evenso the AI does more than 99% of the work.
Because AI Art is outsourcing the creativity part to a machine. You're not creative if you use AI image generators. They CAN be used creatively but their use in and of itself isn't creative because nothing is being created, only imitated, only aproximated, no real human input except text.
You'll find that once you learn to actually MAKE art it is a lot LESS restricting than imitative AI it just takes LONGER. But the results will be yours and they'll be uniquely yours.