TL;DR: how completely and utterly fucked is it that the lines are getting drawn as the "pro-worker" side being about defending property rights while the pro-AI side is about attacking the value of workers' labor altogether? There's no side left to have the correct take, which is that intellectual property is fake and represents collective theft from society (and at its very best represents a fragile, niche use in sometimes protecting some workers from business), but that AI poses an existential threat to huge numbers of workers and represents the mass enshittification of both media and communication to the benefit of business owners and business owners alone.
Specifically how copyright figures into it: it's like the whole thing is being framed to strengthen copyrights in general in an absurd and dangerous way. It's framing it around ownership rights, which inherently favor those who own the most and have the most power to own the products of others' labor.
It seems like a foregone conclusion to businesses that the products of an AI are infringing on the training material (despite that being nonsensical - the most one could reasonably claim is that the company training the AI violated some terms of use with the training data) and they're just fighting over how cheaply they can establish the rights to use it themselves. Obviously, expanding copyright to such an extent would be catastrophic, especially if they get another DMCA style "anyone can allege a work may have been produced in some way by a machine that may have infringed at some point, and the onus is on the creator to prove it was not rather than the claimant" law out of it.
But if it somehow goes the other way you get the equivalent of liberalized states nationalizing citizens' property so it can then be privatized again and sold to oligarchs and foreign investors for a fraction of its value, the enclosure of all creative workers' labor to the benefit of business and only to business, letting them reap the collective wealth of society and then privatize it for themselves.
No matter how the copyright discourse goes, the corporations win and the workers lose. Copyright is bad, and its repurposing to protect workers is extremely fragile at best. There's no win scenario for the people here: copyright wins, that's bad for workers and good for business; copyright loses, that's bad for workers and good for business.
It ends up being a complete distraction from the real issues with AI generation: how AI generation is a force multiplier on human labor by orders of magnitude, and how disproportionately that benefits business and scammers while massively reducing the opportunities for workers.
Once AI-generation art tools are matured to the level professional image and video editors are it would mean a team of a dozen people could have the same output as a team of hundreds of artists and animators do now, that operations to just shovel out mountains of garbage with a team of a few people could be churning out ten times as much. Just an endless sea of low grade slop competing for your attention, drowning out legitimate works, and using a fraction as much labor as the current endless sea of low grade slop does.
Then there's the even more terrifying prospect of text generation reaching a point where it can feasibly run on hardware that's a few thousand dollars instead of a few tens of thousands of dollars. Astroturfing with classic bots spamming prewritten lines is already horrifyingly effective, even when they fuck up and use the wrong lines and get caught out, as all the CIA bots prove. Astroturfing with entirely fake people goes a step further and is likely to be used not just to push a narrative or advertise a product but simply to drown any platform that's not verifying IDs to drive people into insecure, corporate owned and curated spaces, which will undoubtedly have carve outs to allow government bots and bots representing their owner's interests.
Those are the issues: ever cheapening and devaluing labor and the consequences of this, not questions of ownership and property. Framing it as a question of "who owns this?" and not "whose labor creates this and what is this labor used for?" is surrendering the fight to those who already own the most and ignoring labor entirely.
"Well actually, we've determined that the US has only been trying to overthrow Cuba during 8^[7 contiguous since the 1950s, and one in the 1890s.] of the 25 decades the USA has existed for, so we're forced to rate this statement as a perfidious and malicious misrepresenting of the truth and probably evidence of both foreign subversion and treason." 
Focus on the clearly unsettling pieces? 
There's got to be some element of that, because there's "desperate grifter trying to get attention" level stunts, and there's "pay hundreds of dollars to a professional to carve you up, then have your friend zip tie you in the woods" on a whole different level. Like I assume if this was some sort of mental health crisis getting channeled into a frantic political grift the wounds would have been self-inflicted and the whole thing would have been way more impulsive instead of just incompetent, but this shows a lot of planning plus the capacity to just sit still and let someone slice her up like that.
At the same time, that's an extreme first step for a masochist to take. It almost scans as something like sub frenzy, where someone who's just starting out gets increasingly obsessed with a fantasy that they lack the experience and context to even understand and potentially engages in very risky behavior or ignores red flags, diving in too deep too fast. Like the idea of it was exciting and became an unhealthy obsession that was then channeled into trying to grift off it too.