your argument was predicated upon my comment being factually inaccurate, not analogously poor. I merely listed some leading questions analogising the ability of

your argument was predicated upon my comment being factually inaccurate, not analogously poor. I merely listed some leading questions analogising the ability of human brains to absorb, contextualise and emit copyrighted information to an LLM's ability to do all of those same things. you created a weaker position to attack which was that LLMs are the same as humans if you want to discuss whether it is a poor analogy or not, I'm all for that, but the passage you've chosen to go down is to act as if it were not an analogy at all, which—to borrow a phrase—is disingenuous to the extreme