Humans can’t automate and industrialise the process in the same way that AI can. That is to say, if I spend years learning how to write music and being influenced by a suite of prior artists, I can’t then package myself up and arbitrarily clone my capability such that an infinite number of people can ask me to spit out new music drawing inspiration from those prior artists.
Human capacity is rate-limited, and that’s an important distinction.
Another point: humans exist for a finite time. If I learn how to write music per the above, I’ve only got a set period of time wherein I’m collecting from the talents given to me by the shoulders upon which I’m standing. Sooner or later I retire/die and someone else must become the cultural torchbearer. If you consider some finite amount of capacity in the world to gainfully support all artists, I’m only drawing from that for a finite period of time.
Contrast that with AI, where, theoretically, in 50 years a model will still be just as able to create outputs as it is today.
Having said all that, I don’t have enough skin in the game to decide whether that builds an argument for regulating input vs output. I’m certainly sympathetic to the idea that it might, though. It’s a complex topic and saying “humans work this way, computers are fine to as well” doesn’t IMO capture the nuance of the debate.