I see lots of folks equate "trained on" to "available verbatim" and that simply isn't the case for the vast majority of training data. It becomes hard to have a

I see lots of folks equate "trained on" to "available verbatim" and that simply isn't the case for the vast majority of training data. It becomes hard to have a productive discussion when there is such focus on the examples that are regurgitated verbatim (often by people with explicit knowledge of the expected output, so they would *know* that they are going to infringe if they republished it) to the exclusion of talking about an in-general system that is trained on data and outputs unique data. IMO that second case is a FAR more interesting question.