comment: >
  
  Correct, by itself it may not be theft. A problem may arise when you try to pass AI-generated “Van Gogh style” art as Van Gogh’s actual artworks, for example. An untrained eye may likely be fooled into thinking the AI-generated artwork is actually Van Gogh’s if images do not record where they came from (e.g., an image says whether it was created by AI art generation software in its file metadata), and whether that is the human’s fault may be debatable. It is an issue of authenticity.
context: It's simpler than that. Mixing an image with data from hundreds of thousands of others is sufficient alteration to get around any sane copyright law, and the provision of a text prompt and refinement of the image through onboard tools and image editing software qualifies as a form of authorship. >
  
  Very interesting, if that’s true then art theft would be difficult to prove in these cases. May I ask where you found this is to be true by providing a source? >
  
  Of course art theft will be impossible to prove as long as the output is sufficiently different from any originals. >
  
  Yep you might be right. I guess the exception to this is when prompting an AI to generate art in a certain artist’s style, e.g., Van Gogh >
  
  Still not art theft. It has never been theft to draw/paint in someone else's style.