Like, I can deduce that your argument comes from a place of "this work is mine and mine alone"... but is it? We don't have copyright on mathematics for example, if you come up with an equation or a solution to a tricky problem I can make use of it without the need of attribution. And in many ways, attribution can work similarly in AI generated art; it is common for people seeking a distinctive artists style to write prompts that include said artist and the AI, in turn, will willfully comply.
But what's the real core of your argument, why is it that you think information that is shared in this way is bad?
I can actually empathize with artists that think this technology might threaten their livelihood but this particular position I also view as overly-catastrophic. But you don't really seem to be concerned with that and instead you're making an argument that comes solely from individuality? But to me, these AI models are the maximum expression of something that as societies we have been doing for a very long time: to take the work that's available and use it to create something new.
Now, I completely agree with the licensing issue when it comes to github's copilot. It used public code to train, and therefor any work that is produced through it should be public as well. It's a different issue.
But your argument that "your work becomes my work" is bad is not something I fully understand. Why is it bad? Why is it poison? Shouldn't we maybe be questioning the system that envelops us if such a thing as sharing is considered poison?