In music if you use a snipet of someone else's recording you have to pay them. It wasn't always clear that would be the case, but thats where they landed. (You end up with Led Zeppelin and Beatles Samples in some early rap).
Even "Sound alike " singers get litigated: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co.
But in visual art its a little different. Borrowing is more common and remixing is kinda allowed. When does it become "transformative?" (I always think of the "Hope" poster lawsuit, where the borrower sued the photographer as a strange one. ) https://www.law.columbia.edu/news/archive/obama-hope-poster-...
But what is the AI doing? I don't think its taking the input given and being inspired... Its kinda just sampling, in a way that makes it seem like its being original. Or is the unique training set/ annotations that are is giving the AI its unique output the art, in which case its more original.
At some point some AI is going to spit something out too close to something else and the courts will probably have to decide.