And supporters of AI aren't really making a case that's likely to persuade skeptics, they're just regurgitating "It learns like a human" "It doesn't store the info, just the recipe for making it" and completely failing to address that we've decided it's not ok for someone to regurgitate protected works with 100% accuracy, and that artists don't want people to train AI on their works without permission.

There's a way to sell this to the public, but AI proponents don't want to have to sell it, because they feel that they shouldn't have to, and there's an underlying theme of "The benefit of AI is so overwhelming, and eventually it will replace most commodified creative work anyway so why bother litigating this now, let's just skip this messy step and get to that part" and that's super not going to work to convince skeptics.