- The vast majority of art created is done by people who don't have a full-time job creating art. So why does art have to pay the rent?
- Lots of art still does pay the rent in ways that aren't threatened by AI. I haven't seen any convincing arguments that AI will be the death of commercial art, but moreso a new tool used by many commercial artists.
- Business models change. There have been countless industries and skillsets that have been made obsolete by various technological innovations that have automated what previously required skilled workers to do. Society adapts. Why should we make this particular technological progress illegal, just so we can freeze a particular business model in time? We don't do that with other professions. Why can't artists adapt and find new ways to make money?
- Similarly, why do methods of getting famous for art, or being motivated for art, need to stay consistent and unchanged over time? Why can't artists figure out new ways to get famous or get motivated? Why should we freeze or outlaw technology just so artists don't have to change from what's always worked?
- Copyright violation is not theft. Theft is when you take a rivalrous good from someone else who owns it. If you grow an apple, and I take it, that is theft, and it's wrong because you no longer have that apple. Copyright violation is not theft. If you draw a picture, and I copy it, that picture has not been stolen, and you have not been deprived of it. This is a crime very different than theft, and the laws behind it are very different than the laws behind theft, as is the reasoning behind those laws. So it would behoove you to stop equating it to theft.