If you smuggle "pilfer" into the description of AI, then in that case it's "obvious". But the comparison could just as easily be written, "One is a computer pr

If you smuggle "pilfer" into the description of AI, then in that case it's "obvious". But the comparison could just as easily be written, "One is a computer program, literally designed to learn from copyrighted works, the other is a human being that learns from copyrighted works" If ChatGPT is parroting entire paragraphs of copyrighted work in its answers, then "pilfer" is probably the right word. Or maybe "plagiarize". But if it's training on the information gleaned from the work, and using that training to synthesize the answers, isn't that a lot more like how a learned person applies their knowledge? I haven't yet made up my mind completely on how IP should interact with AI. I see good arguments for and against. But the answer is far from obvious!