> I think OP explains clearly, in many paragraphs, why it's fair use. That's literally what their whole post is about. Actually, what the OP said is, "is typic

> I think OP explains clearly, in many paragraphs, why it's fair use. That's literally what their whole post is about. Actually, what the OP said is, "is typically or commonly a fair use under existing law, because the AIs can and commonly do learn non-copyrightable elements and aspects of those works". The rest of the eight paragraphs had nothing to do with fair use. It's honestly a ridiculous argument to say that learning one non-copyrighted thing means that the regurgitation of another copyrighted thing, after stripping the license, will magically be fair use.