Can you name any of thos reasons? That sounds just like pro-AI talk.
Whats true is that it depends how you use the AI , it can be a powerful and helpful tool or it can just create dogshit.
The most important one is that the AI starts it's work with random noise. Stable Diffusion works by taking a bunch of random pixels and then slowly tweaking values until an image comes out. It can't go in thinking "I'm gonna recreate X" (I mean, it can't go in thinking at all, it's a machine), it's given some mashed potatoes and is told to sculpt them into vague figures and then refine it until the figures ain't so vague.
The second is that the AI can't store it's training data. The training data isn't stored anywhere in the AI. You can see this if you ever look at the file sizes - even the big AIs are only like 50 GB. That's half the size of my images folder, much less the whole booru's worth of shit you need to train an AI worth half a crap. Everything is itemized and broken down into descriptions of lines and curves and then even further abstracted into a really convoluted math problem, which is the AI itself. But you can't get the training data back out of the AI because the process is inherently lossy and the information quite simply no longer exists. It's gone, reduced to variables.
The third and most minor is simply that reproducing the training data is actively avoided by AI developers since, well, that's counter to what AI's supposed to do. People aren't looking for an overengineered copy-paste program after all, they want the AI for their weird niche edge cases, like a bunch of portraits of specific anime characters for a porn game played by at most 1000 people worldwide, or their OC donut steel D&D character. The term for an AI reproducing it's training data is called "Overfitting" and basically ALL of AI development is focused around preventing that. Most AI these days have special little... Algorithmic "hooks"? Sorta? They got things in 'em that prevent overfitting. The most important of which is the lossy process of learning - the AI crunches the information to such an extent that it can no longer overfit because the original image is lost to it.
All of which is comparable to human learning, by the way. AI's aren't people, but we've gotten as far as we have by closer and closer emulating human beings. Humans also engage in lossy learning processes that take aggregate examples and boil them down into patterns (Stereotyping). Humans also have in-built resistance to overfitting (boredom).
The only real argument for AI taking artist jobs is the suggestion that people are turning to AI instead of artists which... Well, come on bro, if you're getting outpreformed by this:
You probably weren't gonna make a living anyway.
