Which is exactly the point, and the reason I think you don't realize what the side you're taking is really about.
After all, if the question were one of whether AIs could create on an equal level to humans, then the answer would be to let them compete fairly in the marketplace, with the best creator winning, human or AI. Competition is the best way to ensure quality work, since it pressures everyone competing to sell their work to raise their game above the average. That's how I learned to produce marketable work -- by learning how my work fell short of the competition, then learning how to raise my game. Learning AI models need input and experience to learn from, as much as humans do. So let them compete and learn along with everyone else.
But that's not what the executives want. They don't just want to let AIs compete alongside human authors; they want to replace human authors with AI (not to mention human actors, directors, set designers, cinematographers, composers, and all the hundreds of other people needed to make movies and TV). Why do they want to do that? Because they know that AI products are not original creative work that can be copyrighted and owned, so they don't have to pay for them. Because they know that AIs will just mindlessly churn out requested output and will never fight to be treated fairly and paid a living wage.
So the "pro-AI" side in this argument is not a celebration of AI's potential, it's an exploitation of AI's limitations in the name of corporate greed and power.
