>Human beings are not ai, I don't think that the two can just be compared.

Absolutely they can be compared though, they are two forms of intelligence, one of those is built on the principles of intelligence of the other.

>A human being being influenced by another artist is not the same as an ai, and a human being can't copy another artist as accurately, broadly and quickly as an ai can.

It's not the exact same sure, but its broadly similar. You don't store 100% of the info you learn and see because it would be too much data. So you remember processes, rules, and outcomes much better, just like an AI would.

>Even if you practice Van Goghs work your entire life your work will never actually look like his there will always be noticeable differences. There's a lot of artists who even do try to directly copy other artists styles and it's always very apparent and like a worse copycat.

I mean, the average person and I'm pretty sure the both of us too would not be able to distinguish the original from the copied one, unless we had more info. You can do a simple test online, and let's see if you manage to distinguish the two. If you do get a high score, then congrats! You are better at spotting copied art than the average human is.

Furthermore, what you're describing is exactly how AI works. Unless you use an Img2Img model, which is not what the majority of AI art is, then you would never, or it would be close to impossible for you to produce the same output, just like a human. Again, you could test this right now. Just go on an AI art app like Midjourney or Stable Diffusion, and type in "Van Gogh Starry Night", let's see what outputs you will get out of this.

>it can be fed with an artists work and spit out finished illustrations in that style in seconds.

First of all not exaclty, as I've said before, the model never contains the original input, so it's only learning the process, like a human.

Second of all, you can do the same thing! It'll just take you more time. Your friend gives you 100 pictures of a new art style called "circly" which is art purely made with circles. He will give you days, weeks or months, however much you need, to output something in this new style. He wants a picture of New York only made with circles. So you learn this style and create the new drawing or painting for him. You did almost the exact same thing an AI did, except it took you longer which is normal as a human being.

>What is the point of hiring the artist who's work was input into the ai for it to learn from it?

What is the point of hiring a horse carriage driver, when the concept of how a carriage works, was used to create the "evil car"?

First this is a loaded and emotional question. All kinds of art was used without discrimination, no one was specially selected.

Secondly, again, the model will not be able to output the same thing. It can draw in the same style, but the output will not be the same, it just mathematically won't be. So there is economic value in the original work too.

If a process or job can be automated, and there can be a benefit for humanity, why should we stop this development. Where were you when the horse carriage was being replaced? Where are you, fast food workers are getting automated too?? Why is it ok for others but not for you? And if it's ok for no one, do you think we should regress and go back in the past?

>Not to mention that it also competes them out of their own search tag,

I literally have never met a person who searches the art from someone outside of their official channels. Even if they do, then that's a marketing challenge. But what's the difference with popular artists that were being flooded with copies from fiver then?

A style is copyrightable btw, and thank gosh for that. So if they're getting flooded with "copies of their style" that's a lie. It's not their style, it's the style they use and maybe even discovered. But they have no copyright claim. Imagine a world where Disney could copyright drawing cartoonish styles... or DC comic styles... is that what you want?