Raw LLM Responses

I disagree. For several reasons. 1. Let's imagine we've all got AI built into our brains. We all now have the right brainset and the technical skill to create any kind of image. If so, it's only a matter of our creative vision aka how well we can 'prompt' ourselves. Does our work belong to us or to the company behind the technology built into us? 2. Suppose I look at the picture and I like it and I want to have it. I don't know anything about it. As a consumer of art, I don't really care how or by whom this was created. I just like it, period. For me, whether it's art or not is defined solely by ME. Not by the 'artist-ability' of the brain or hands (or computer code) behind it. And so this whole copyright thing becomes purely a commercial issue and AI here should thus be viewed purely as a tool, same as brush and canvas, yes. 3. You say anyone can generate a picture like that using AI. But no. Nobody has generated the same picture, right? It's a standalone piece, unique in its own way. The artistic value of this picture is a different sort of question, I don't want to go into it right now. So to me, as an art consumer, it still looks much like give two people a brush and one will make art while the other will make a mess kind of thing, sorry. 4. Let's suppose nobody can copyright their AI generated art (text, concept, whatever). If so, then eventually we arrive at a point where nobody can actually copyright anything because AI keeps evolving and AI detectors keep misjudging human-made things as AI, believe me I know what I'm talking about I'm dealing with it a lot lately in my line of work. Suppose there is this guy who makes digital art from scratch and suddenly he's accused of using AI even though he doesn't and he can't prove otherwise. He can't copyright his work and he can't make any profit of it. What are we gonna do about THIS? I'll be really grateful for your commentaries maybe you have some good counterpoints that will change my mind. Seriously, I will :)