That’s not a sound argument. AI doesn’t copy, but that doesn’t mean it must know what it’s doing in any human analogue of the “knowing” process.
That it doesn’t copy it’s very easy to prove: ask for something that is not in the training set. Does it generate it? Then it’s not a copy.
“Copy-pasting and deforming lines” is such a generic description (and to a certain extent a misrepresentation of what is actually happening) that I don’t see how it’s useful, or relevant. Even if we supposed this was true, you would be claiming that many of Duchamp’s works or potentially Arcimboldo’s or mosaics or collages are “just copies”.
That it doesn’t copy it’s very easy to prove: ask for something that is not in the training set. Does it generate it? Then it’s not a copy.
“Copy-pasting and deforming lines” is such a generic description (and to a certain extent a misrepresentation of what is actually happening) that I don’t see how it’s useful, or relevant. Even if we supposed this was true, you would be claiming that many of Duchamp’s works or potentially Arcimboldo’s or mosaics or collages are “just copies”.