That some, most or all art is partly or wholly derivative of other art is not relevant because the process used by 'AI' does not resemble the artistic process. When Shakespeare wrote Hamlet (a work derived from an older play, itself derived from an older myth which itself had been through countless retellings, variations and translations), he did not do what an LLM does, which is approximately to say: 'It's statistically likely that the phrase "to be" will be followed by the phrase "or not to be"'. Putting together statistical likelihoods is not creativity. This alone shows that AI 'art' is not creative and therefore not art at all.
Additionally, instructing a machine to make things from prompts does not require creativity. Creativity is not 'having ideas'; it's an ongoing process. When you tell an image generator to make an image, you're not asking it to create something, because it cannot do it. You're saying 'Show me the statistically likely output for this input'. Again, this statistical generator is not the same as, nor is it comparable to, the human imaginative process.
Yes, it's metonymy, as people have said. You also get it in similar contexts where people will name a building such as 'the White House' or '[10] Downing Street' to refer to the governments of the US or the UK.
Some sort of libertarian socialism, basically. Markets with co-ops and a strong welfare system provided principally by highly democratic local governments.
I don't know, we already have open source 3D printers and they really haven't brought about the industrial revolution some people hoped. Not quite the same as replicators, granted!
I agree, that logic has been used to justify atrocities throughout history, including right now. It's exactly what Israel says about Palestine, China about the Uyghurs, Trump about Mexican immigrants. And it's completely antithetical to Star Trek's values.
You're lazy and talentless, and you like how it allows you to steal the hard work and talent of others.