I use AI 'art' in a similar fashion to you, I see it as a resourse rather than something that I'm using to create a finished project. I like the ones that take a sketch or photobash/3d pose I make and run it through the engine to give me some ideas, then I use those as a sort of concept that ill photobash or piece together as a final reference and make my own piece based off on! I think that having a moderate viewpoint like this is helpful, AI tools aren't going away, while I don't agree with how they are being used by many, artists may as well use them to their advantage as well. As long as its not in the sense of blatantly posting the AI itself. Haha sorry. I know you're getting a lot of these, youre just one of the first people I've seen with the same or similar viewpoint.

Ai still fellows the definition of art because art is self expression. If we put rules around art it self then it’s goes against freedom of expression

I mostly agree with you on the AI art thing. There's only a few places where AI art is fine to use:

- personal use, without publishing it: this is okay to me (unless the AI is trained on pay walled content that you don't have access to). It's like taking a copyrighted but publicly available image from the web and playing around with it on your computer in Photoshop, for example to create a desktop wallpaper for yourself, with no intention to post it online.

- there's a few situations where posting online are fine, like when it falls under fair use (like for furthering science or as a critique of the original content)

- it's also fine if the AI was trained on free or properly licensed stock images, because then you'd have the right to use the images however you want (unless the stock images come with specific licence restrictions).

In all other cases, there's indeed a case to be made that copyrights have been violated, though I don't know if that happened during training, during image generation or both, legally speaking.