Now that I have lost the last speck of respect I had after being indirectly labeled as a redditor,
I must make an uneducated reply.

And after reading your part rant about exactly people like me and partly acceptable argumentation,
I do not accept it fully because of one issue.
But firstly let me tell you that metaphors like car parts do not translate into software world because software is immaterial and "parts" can be replicated digitally infinetly for example. Here is the issue, what you define as parts.

I do not distribute parts of the software that is licensed under academic research.
I do not distribute parts of copyrighted media that the ai could "put together".
At hand are the generated mp4 files which first need to be converted to mp3 and then cleaned up further.

Regarding the question, can AI art violate someone else's copyright?

You say the statement AI art can't be copyrighted is not relevant to the question because previously software was involved that was licensed. However here this statement comes into place, because the ai art is not copyrighted it is public domain and separated fully from any previous licenses.

Yes some lawyers will obviously tell you if you call them on the phone, that this could be a copyright problem but there is so much Ai generated content that is sold under any license such as NFT's that originate from these same github repos with the academic research licenses.