It's difficult to have an honest conversation with people who use words like "stealing" as though the system is somehow capable of replicating information it's been given in a recognizable way.
From the outside... do you remember the guy from Dr. Strangelove? The one who was ranting like a crazy person about how the commies were stealing our precious bodily fluids? That's what yall kinda look like.
It isn't theft because nothing is stored, taken or recreated, and we need to understand that for the simple reality of what it is.
Even in cases of extreme overfitting, the probability here of derivative works, at least according to the studies on the topic, are about 350,000:1. Even if that number were ten times higher, you would still be below one percent of total output, on the "just a few words" happy path you're so intent on discussing.
The easy mistake you're making here is that you're assuming AI can't be subverted or experimented with, or hacked, or taken beyond basic use cases, all of which are routine pieces of the process when you work with this kind of art.
Dada is about standing up and questioning the norms, ethical standards, and creative processes of the art establishment, and the bourgeoisie capitalist ideas that govern the foundations of these art discussions.
Dada stands firmly against several of the very specific gatekeeping arguments in play, as well as all arguments of craft and skill that ignore the purpose of art. It also questions expressionist dogma, which is also at the heart of the present dialectic as well.
Dada is also firmly rooted in both nihilism and experimentation. So there is that.