You've missed the mark, and admittedly I was vague, but you seem to be talking about a completely separate phenomenon from the one I replied to.
I am not talking about "technology putting people out of work."
I am talking about "technology enabling the mass copying of a specific person's copyrighted works." I am comparing these two things:
1. a professional imitator, who works for years to develop a mimicked style and then has to work for hours to produce a piece, (and in any case is not legal to claim as original,)
2. a piece of software that could produce millions of copies a day, frankly creating a nontrivial chance that eventually a copy of a specific work would be created and claimed as "original."
You can argue my points here, as I'm not a copyright lawyer, but what you've argued above is irrelevant.
I am not talking about "technology putting people out of work."
I am talking about "technology enabling the mass copying of a specific person's copyrighted works." I am comparing these two things:
1. a professional imitator, who works for years to develop a mimicked style and then has to work for hours to produce a piece, (and in any case is not legal to claim as original,)
2. a piece of software that could produce millions of copies a day, frankly creating a nontrivial chance that eventually a copy of a specific work would be created and claimed as "original."
You can argue my points here, as I'm not a copyright lawyer, but what you've argued above is irrelevant.