So i had an idea for a thing. This thing did not exist. Parts of it may existed in some fashion, but the thing itself did not.

Now the thing exists. It hangs on my wall.

We may have different definitions of the term creation in mind here. Can you suggest a better word to use for using my input to make a thing that did not exist before? I can use that going forward.

And yes. Ai combines things that other people have made before into something else. Usually the Mona Lisa does not have my face. Then I spent around and hour in stable diffusion and maybe two hours in gimp. Now the Mona Lisa has my face. I would call this new, as the Mona Lisa, to my knowledge, has never before had my face on it. Let alone looked like my face belonged on it.

I'm making an assumption here, and feel free to correct me if its incorrect, but I'm guessing that you feel its okay when a person blends artistic styles into something that is distinctly their own.

If this assumption is true: why is it legitimate when a person does it and not a machine? Or is it?

And another question: if the issue is with artists being compensated (maybe another assumption here, in apologize if I'm off base): would you support legislation to the effect that those that inspired or influenced another artist's work receive recompense for it?

Second to last question: if an ai is trained solely on works in the public domain do you still have an issue with it?

Final question: if existing artists styles can be replicated using a genealogy of sorts using only those public domain works, and they're combined in a manner that no one has thought to combine them: are there issues you have with that? What are they?

Honestly trying to get a better understanding of where the borders of right and wrong here for you are so I can better understand your position.