This is where you have a complete flawed understanding of what I'm saying. You're still attempting to control the minds of the consumer that is the core problem and that's what you're missing in my statements. Whether you're consumer is someone who is consumed it and filtered into a visual effects processor or an audio processor or into some learning machine to derive interesting things from it or whether they have fed it in through their eyeballs or their ears and use their own mind to drive interesting things from it it is ultimately the same thing. Your core position still seems to be you want to exert control post consumption.

Your analogy of thinking you can protect something physically placed in a Hilton hotel is a false analogy. The level of protection you have there is the same level of protection of you selling something to a consumer on a piece of physical media or even through a streaming media. The choice is whether you place it in the Hilton or you don't that is the only level of control that you have. Once you've decided to place something in the hotel you have zero control about how the guests will look at it perceive it if they will take photos of it if it will inspire them to do great things and help humanity or if it will turn them into a psychopath. They can examine it in detail and come up with all kinds of bizarre assertions saying that these works in the Hilton hotel support devil worship or some other bizarre claims. They can run it through image processing algorithms and say they're hidden messages inside. It actually is not uncommon for these kinds of bizarre claims to be made about art in public places. All of that is beyond your control and it's beyond any artist control to force the consumer to only understand it in their specific way.

Trying to place AI as some special thing that is magical beyond what humans have done is not a rational claim. For a consumer of the media to take it and run it through an algorithm to process it to derive some meaning from it is the core thing. Placing a buzzword such as AI only distracts from that. People were playing their records backwards and claiming there was messages from the devil on them. I would suspect the authors of the music didn't like this claim that their music was being perverted by playing it backwards and claiming it was some sort of demonic devil worship song poisoning the minds of children. Yet the authors of the music had no control of people spinning their record players backwards. Feeding things through processing algorithms is a thing consumers are allowed to do with the media that they're consuming to help them derive things from it. AI is not magic. So we're back down to the core thing of attempting to exert control on how the consumer can interpret the creative work. You don't get to choose how a consumer consumes and interprets your creative work.

Propaganda was a thing long before AI became a buzzword. And history bears out that artists will not do anything meaningful, they will continue to be artists and then they will be replaced if they don't want to do it anymore. The world is awash and artists and creatives and we are never at any point in history worried about a shortage. Because if you study your history you will see that artists and entertainers have been around since the beginning of time with no concept of intellectual property ownership. It is important for you to study history on this point because intellectual property ownership is a modern created illegal fiction. So much of what you're talking about blatantly ignores history. Not just the history of where intellectual property legal fiction came from but the idea that artist and creative people have never had to worry about their works of being twisted and misused prior to AI. There is hundreds and hundreds of years of History of creative works being misrepresented from their creators intentions. Somehow it has not stopped people from creating artistic works.

And I would argue that at this point in history those who claim to be artistic creators are not enriching this world. Not anymore not with the copyright that is 100 years and the other onerous things. Those artistic creators are actually holding the culture of the world hostage in an attempt to sell it back to them. The fact that you think that artists are creating new things that are enriching the culture is shocking because when is the last time that an artist in their lifetime has released their work to the public domain? I'm sure it happens it's just so rare it never gets reported. Because you don't enrich a culture as an artist until the public has ownership of the works. So fundamentally you're making a bizarre argument that you want some absolute control over something as an artistic creator but also claiming that you're enriching the culture and the public as a whole. I can't think of any two points which can be further apart in this kind of argument.