> It's been said a thousand times but the ability to produce copyrighted material is not copyright infringement.
Aside from fair use, yes it is.
> If I draw The Simpsons on a piece of paper - whether or not I used AI to create it - it's not copyright infringement.
Only because of the fair use doctrine, which is limited. If it damages the market for the original, then a court could definitely declare it to be infringement.
> Copyright infringement is if I tried to sell that Simpsons work as my own, putting up for consumption and reaping the monetary benefits.
No. Copyright infringement requires neither sale nor misrepresenting a work as one's one. It also covers derivative works, not just perfect duplicates. Copyright covers reproduction and derivate works and distribution/performance -- you can get in trouble for just one of those. Taken strictly, that would be a horrible world, but fortunately the fair use doctrine weakens those quite a bit. On the flip side, if AI reproduction destroys the original markets -- as it is quite obviously doing right now -- then it's going to have a reckoning at some point, given how its legal status is completely based upon getting a free ride by claiming fair use.
I'll say it again:
You can produce copyrighted material all day long and it's not copyright infringement.
If I draw The Simpsons on a piece of paper - whether or not I used AI to create it - it's not copyright infringement.
Copyright infringement is if I tried to sell that Simpsons work as my own, putting up for consumption and reaping the monetary benefits.
It has never been illegal to produce copyrighted work. You people are in for a surprise dystopia if you keep pushing to make that a reality.