Software piracy is also widely considered stealing
Wich does not make it any true. Even piracy is the wrong word. But it was used so long so wrong, that it now has that meaning. If you use such incorrect terms you run risk of belittling the issue. People do not take it serious. Like, this is killing me. But you actually can steal software, and databases, source code and so on. Calling the unauthorized use or copies also stealing is not helping.
which contains ZERO expression on your part, again akin to googling images and picking one of the results
This is not true. It is more like being a lector. You give your unpaid moneys typewriters and guidelines and then sift through the garbage and refine what you seek.
Only someone who doesn't understand anything about creativity would compare machine pattern extraction with humans learning from and being influenced by other art. They're not even remotely similar. People talking like these glorified search engines are one step away from "advanced AI" are fully delusional.
You do realize, that the best pattern recognition apparatus known to man is the human brain? This is what our brain is all about. Patterns. We are good at that. And this is exactly how we learn! Repetition of patterns. We internalize the concepts and know how things are supposed to look. A reason why zombies and clowns are frightening (it is called the uncanny valley). They violate the known pattern.
Did you ever try using one of these AI? I did. And I do not see happening what you rant about. And ranting it is, complete with ad hominems. I repeat: you need better arguments. Going emotional and insulting people is not good arguing.
You also seem to try to elevate what human artists do somehow. It is a skill and what you call creativity is not some mystical emergence of being human. It is your brain creating associations by comparing stuff it knows and linking it in new ways, with limitations of applied mechanical skill. Art is not a synonym for creativity. It is a synonym for superior skill and prowess. While you do create something, a creative expression is not needed for art. Nor is something that "was expressed" art.
I get why people get so emotional about those AI stuff. It chips away at what they think makes us humans human. Not only some mere manual labor. But what I see, much of what people call art is just that. Manual labor. And other stuff was just expressed, but would not qualify as art, if no one told you.
Any responsible lawyer will tell you commercial use of derivative AI generated images based on copyrighted work that you do not have license to use is copyright infringement
A responsible lawyer would tell you that the issue is not resolved and you should be careful to release such stuff, until the garbage law that exists has been tested in courts. If it were so clear, there would not even be a debate. And what you failed to say, that the reason valve does discourage it at the moment is precisly because it is not so clear. You tried to tell it like valve discourages is, because it is clear and forbidden. Did you even read the article you tried to argue with?
I am not saying I am pro AI or whatever corner you try to paint me in, with your qualifier veiled insults. I am only saying you need better arguments. Because current issues might be resolved and what then? Argue against machines taking our jobs? Go full on Dune with the Butlerian Jihad against the thinking machines? And for the generative AI stuff as you call it, what about AI that indeed were trained with public domain and licensed training materials? How do you argue against them?