This sums it up perfectly in my mind, the analogy is extremely apt IMHO. As a musician I find it impossible to spontaneously produce melodies, rhythms, etc, that aren't heavily influenced by what I've listened to - perfectly analogous to how AI generated art is heavily influenced by the billions of training images it's ingested. The difficulty in composing is finding a way to transform, combine, and synthesize the influences into something new. I have been approaching generative AI in the same way and can't help but some of the fears are overblown. It takes work to get coherent results. If your own work is incoherent or wholly derivative, your AI outputs will also be. If your work isn't incoherent or highly derivative, then I'd argue you've already done a major part (if not most) of the creative work in your mind - the AI is just another tool to realize it which empowers human artists to be creative like never before.

I've only got a single down vote. I assume someone just didn't get it, but I'm glad you did!

Coincidentally, I had ChatGpt write a short story about a man going to the beach in they style of Dostoevsky and showed it to my wife.

And she cried for a minute before starting to laugh that she was crying from a story made by a bot.