I'm trying to point out the flaw in your argument not the real possibility of a human doing this. You have unrealistic expectations of AI art and such a lawsuit against a human would obviously not go in your favor. 5 seconds of google will tell you that Style is not copyright protected so your entire premise is flawed.

So, reading your comment, I can infer that the main problem is not the fact that the AI was trained on copyrighted data, but the fact that its performance outperforms that of a human artist.

no, that's just my rhetorical response to a stupid hypothetical argument

But the question was not so stupid as it underlines the actual problem of AI, the scale on which it operates, not the fact that a machine could learn similarly to a human. I found the question pretty clever.