"dude", I could counter-argue that many modern art is "ripping off" Turner's work, but since you know so much about the art world, I'm assuming you know what I'm saying.

Filters for "Van Gogh" or "Impressionist" or "watercolor" have existed for decades now; are they ripping of previous work without paying for it?

When does a specific trace becomes "intellectual property" to be ripped off? Does Mondrian holds the rights on colored squares?

If you don't understand that every living or read artist was "inspired" (modified) by what he saw and experienced, I don't know what to tell you; you come off as one of those people that seem to think that "art" is inspiration; There's a somewhat well known composer in my country that used to say "inspiration is for amateurs".

Having that posture is, in itself, a position of utter and complete ignorance. If you don't understand how you need to absorb something before you transcend it, and how the things you absorbed will define your own transcendence, you know nothing about the creative process and their inner workings; Sure, if a machine does it, and if it uses well-known iteration processes, one can argue if it is art, an artistic manifestation or - better yet - if it has intellectual rights that can be "ripped off"; But beating on the chest and claiming stealing, like somehow a musician never played any melodies composed by someone else or a painter never used the technique or subject decomposition as their peers or their ancestors is, frankly, naive.

Conflating a machine that uses the works of a living, working artist to mimic their style with a watercolor filter is so disingenuous it doesn’t deserve a response. Don’t waste my time with this run-on drivel when you wont engage with the topic at hand.

> works of a living, working artist to mimic their style

Got it. You're picking up one specific example and making it your whole position. I'd suggest you have a look at animation from the 60's to early 80's to understand that ghibli is also an incremental style.

Also, I'd suggest you look at advanced (non ai) tools that mimick both the media and techniques usined in more conventional art.

> engage with the topic at hand

Your point was plagiarism and that I looked like an uninformed teenager. I addressed them both. We don't have to agree on the same thing, but moving goalposts is not a healthy discussion strategy.

I made one example for you when you suggested that the original author made a strawman, and you went on an unhinged rant in response with no bearing on the subject. No goalposts have been moved - you are simply rambling on unrelated nonsense to avoid something as simple as admitting a point you don’t like is not a strawman.

This is immature and unproductive, I wont be responding any further.

If we’re talking about AI as a concept - sure. But there are tools made specifically for this purpose, to the point that some artist’s names are preprogrammed into them for use. That’s a bit beyond what you’re saying, that’s a tool you can blame.