They want to make it less obvious that they've stolen people's content. That's what these procedural images are based on. Loads and loads of content taken from people for free.
The content that the people themselves posted to the Internet? I'm pretty sure that OpenAI didn't break into any artist's studios and steal anything.
Do art students steal when they tour the museum? Please, I really need to know... what sort of dingbat philosophy is it that thinks that this even slightly resembles stealing, in either of the "copyright infringement is stealing" or the "actual theft" meanings.
I hope the DSM VI includes copyright maximalism in its list of mental illnesses.
None of what you've said is relevant. The same or similar processes the brain uses are at work here.
> This argument is absurd and is based on the flawed notion that software has "equal rights" to humans,
The people who run the software have the same "equal rights" as humans. If you're allowed to download one of those images and look at it, they're allowed to download it and train their software with it.
You're trying to invent new intellectual property rights out of thin air. No thanks, we already have more than enough of that lunacy.