Well, here's proof: If a human is not provided with input of existing (apparently copyrighted) works, this is what happens to a human mind: https://en.wikipedi

Well, here's proof: If a human is not provided with input of existing (apparently copyrighted) works, this is what happens to a human mind: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_of_Aveyron https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_of_Aveyron So clearly humans are using existing "works", without proper crediting, to produce even just language. There are more examples of this. So like most criticism of AI, this is yet another appeal to the magic of human minds/soul/god/... It's a one sided criticism. Yes AI is not quite at an identical level of intelligence as humans, but like most AI limitations, this is a limitation shared by both human minds and artificial intelligence algorithms: it doesn't work without "stealing" others' works. In other words: when you answer "Yes" or "No" to a question, any question, should you credit your mother? Because you're most definitely copying her use of those words ... Obviously for copyright to be even remotely reasonable there needs to be a "cutoff". Copyrighted works are just existing works, expressed to a latent space of higher dimension low enough that a human mind can analyze it, but high enough that it's "not obviously a copy".