I do neither acknowledge it, nor do I disagree, since: 1. I do not know how much it would drain with different kind of hardware, nor can I understand from your point how much energy was consumed exactly. Also you first compare your image generation with gaming (false comparison - maybe people do not game at all? Maybe they game rather short and not hardware-intense games?) later you compare energy consumption with eating burgers (false comparison ... hardware vs human body?). 2. With this question you avoid answering my questions from before.
Imitating might not be illegal, but at least in Germany there is the copyright law (UrhG §53.7), which says that you can only "record" and copy a work without the agreement of the author for private purposes. 1. The training site: big tech companies did rip of many artists to generate a model from their work for commercial purposes. So this would be already against the German copyright law (especially since according to the U.S. copyright office Google used works, which were even "behind a firewall on subscription-based websites"). 2. Regarding the "AI generating site" it got proven already that not only a style adaption is possible, but also direct copies are possible. 3. Even if it would be legal in all manners, I personally would not find it right that artists get ripped off, while a big company doing so, would get profit from it without compensating these artists. This just already feels completely wrong.
Just in case it comes up now: I do not find it legit here to say "AI training is like human learning and a human can also learn from other peoples works". Sure a human can do so in theory, but at least I can tell that in practice I did not train almost all the known music pieces out there to get where I am know as a music composer. My active training set probably was rather small compared to generative AI models training sets. Yet still I am capable of producing new music based on decisions and experience in different kind of areas of my life. So with this point I basically just want to throw in the question whether "AI training vs human training" really is that direct comparable.
You suddenly point to whether "I can prove it in this game here", while this was not the point. The initial point basically was "try not to use AI, make it yourself, which has more soul, AI is driven on stolen art" (original comment-thread starter).
What I personally complaining about is the general point of view on AI in such regards. I would not even say that you may never use AI techniques (hint: read my blogpost). My personal main concern is the "ripping of artists, who will probably never get rewarded monetary nor with honor/recognition". Also additional concerns in this topic are that facts get turned around, inequity gets fueled, dangers of AI could be talked down (there allegedly already was an AI driven suicide). Sure the last points might not be connected to the image generation site of AI, but you asked what I am complaining about.