I would not agree @luthien1126 ..
Art generated using others #art as reference but different enough is original artwork. Just as people do and redo the Donut in Blender, It is always different, even if the basis are those.
I understand the #vision @luthien1126 , but bringing the discussion into another plane.. what is #inspiration?
Isn't it the result of things we have seen and that unconsciously we are trying to reproduce using parts of different #artworks we did not have #permission to copy?
If it can be seen by someone, it can be referenced by that person.. Well, technically no.. But 99%+ of the people do that and #artists are fine with it.. tho, the very same #artist complains if that is done by a non-organic entity...
Not saying it is right, just saying that we should extend the #complain also to people that reference other's artworks in their #creative process.
But open to #discussion, kinda #interesting #argument about #AI and #human #rights 
@frayoshi I guess this all boils down to derivative art by humans vs those done by a computer, and why one is more tolerated than the other. Since AI art is quite novel, there will understandably be violent reactions to it. I, for one, am still iffy about it the same way I shake my head at artists who are blantantly copycats.
@frayoshi However, the resulting "derivative art" isn't a result of inspiration/reference; it's a "sample" sans any permission or credit from the original artist, as explained by the post.