The birth of AI painting tools has sparked resistance from some commercial artists. Is this behavior also a form of Ludism?

Q: The birth of AI painting tools has sparked resistance from some commercial artists. Is this behavior also a form of Ludism? A: It is postmodern Luddism, which actually involves a deeper question: whether the ownership form of patents or proprietary skills has been surpassed by technology? Why does AI's painting constitute a copying of the art style (in a sense of infringement)? From the perspective of AI training, the number of images that can be produced is almost infinite, but the images that can be understood to a limited extent are only a very small part (like a subspace manifold structure in high-dimensional pixel space). If AI's output wants to be understood or adopted by humans, it can only choose to output this part instead of meaningless noise. The problem is that there are few (understandable) art styles that are effective for AI, not many. If you go through art history, you find that artworks can be classified, have macro characteristics and expression rules, and only have a limited number of expression techniques, which are repeatedly combined at different levels or represented in different media. For AI, this is clearly something that can be mastered and learned. The art style, in fact, does not have innovation and only repeatedly infringes (or more kindly, pays tribute), because those who understand the art style are similar. If the art style serves the viewer, it is destined to move from divergence to convergence. A painting style, where you first occupy your position as the pioneer, and later refine or transfer to other fields, because the difference in the minds of the viewers you serve is not significant. Similarly, a patent system with a similar art style will gradually weaken its actual influence in an effective free market, as patents have market value and formal rules that can be learned by AI if they are actually useful (understandable).