The model learns concepts from images, not the images itself. It has developed general solutions explaining light, colors, composition, objects and their relation to one another, facial features and too many more concepts to even begin enumerating them.
How is this different from a human studying art, literature, music, etc. to learn concepts and then apply them in creating new pictures, novels or songs?
Further, just because we can talk about how artists, at a high level do the same thing as AI image generators, the actual mechanism is not exactly the same and is therefore still subject to distinct regulation.
Even if you were able to somehow establish that computer programs should have the same rights as people (since they are made and used by people,) you’re still not out of the woods. Much debate remains about what creativity and originality means when talking about human generated content in an IP sense, and adding the programmatic aspect doesn’t simplify things. (eg The Sina Qua Non of Copyright is Uniqueness, Not Originality https://tiplj.org/wp-content/uploads/Volumes/v20/v20p327.pdf)
So? An excavator clearly isn't a human, but it digs holes in the ground by the same principles that a human using only his bare hands would, only faster and more efficient.
I can setup stable diffusion on a computer, I can put a brush next to a roll of canvas, or hammer and chisel next to a block of marble. Neither of these setups will create art on its own.
