I’m going to wager that the percentage of people in our society who would like to extend copyright to restrict these tools, favoring the needs individual copyri

I’m going to wager that the percentage of people in our society who would like to extend copyright to restrict these tools, favoring the needs individual copyright holders over the needs of the public domain, is much smaller than you realize. By the time this reaches judgment and goes through the appeals process there will be a vast industry of non-infringing uses that are clearly transformative and in fair use (Sony v Universal) You cannot say that the person using ChatGPT to control the lights in their garage is infringing on anyone’s copyright in any manner whatsoever. The point of copyright is not to gain a permanent monopoly on certain speech. The point of copyright is not to make sure that people are fairly compensated for their work. Their work might be terrible but contain a good idea that is later reimagined in a better way (Baker v Seldon) but that’s for the market to decide. The courts will probably concur that these models are fair-use and I will agree with their judgement.