This is honestly the best response so far, and I agree that my statement was probably too ambiguous. I am not claiming that anyone says AI should have all the

This is honestly the best response so far, and I agree that my statement was probably too ambiguous. I am not claiming that anyone says AI should have all the rights of humans, I'm saying that people are arguing that: -> the Right existing for humans (to organically learn by ingesting works of others) -implies that- -> learning must also then be allowed for non-human learning (i.e. AI models) as a Right That argument does not make sense to me unless you start from the assumption that "learning" is what grants the Right (i.e. that everything has a right to learn, computers included), rather than being human, which is what I mean by "devaluing" people. I agree the court case is necessary, but only as a vehicle to enshrine what should be an obvious truth: Humans learn from experience whether they endeavor to or not, so they literally cannot ingest media (e.g. for the purposes of entertainment that the creators intend, per OpenAI's brief) without assimilating it into their mind. That is not true for computers. AI models do not consume content for the purposes set out by the creators. They consume them for business purposes, and to allow them to do so, without license or permission, completely destroys copyright protection against corporations. We do not need a new law; the current law already doesn't allow companies to use copyrighted works without permission. We just need the existing law enforced against AI model companies.