If you have a Picaso style advertisement for Ford its probably transformative w.r.t. any of Picaso's works since none of them as-is could be used for that advertisement. There's no way Picaso painted any Ford motor vehicles.
As well as if you used those imagery as an example of the generative capabilities the originals wouldn't suit that purpose. Or if you had a collection of AI generated art then the originals also wouldn't work.
No, it's not close at all. Did you look at the images in question for the ruling? Warhol's picture is very clearly a tracing of the photograph. Unless you're using the AI to generate an almost-exact copy of one of the training images, this ruling does not apply.
> Supreme Court rules Andy Warhol’s Prince art is copyright infringement
And fair use is the main exemption to copyright, and that was decided here.
Maybe, but that is not how dalle and other generative AI work right now it is trained on a huge number artists and images. Not just mixing and matching from images from one artist even if you ask for something in one artists style. Generated an images that falls under copyright seems possible, but automatic.
It's non-transformative in the legal sense that {an original image by X} and {a generated image in the style of X} are likely used for the exact same purpose (be it display, advertisement, whatever).