This is the same as saying that the generative art (which has been a thing for decades) provides infinite variation. This is only technically true: the "infinite" variations of the procedurally generated art are all constrained by the original creator's intent, which is exactly what gives such art value.

The generative art is not set in fixed pixels, but instead is represented in a fuzzy form (equations, algorithms etc) that slightly varies each time you look at it. The value of it is also constrained by the author's intent and work. Only humans can be subject to copyright, so it at least makes common (if not legal) sense.

ML models are the same as the generative art that previously existed - they only add the captured essence of the prior data to the mix of human artistic intent and hard algorithms.

What is the value of artists having incomes if the same art can be generated instead?