This seems like a reasonable opinion when you think about the training data size and imagine that any given output is some kind of interpolation of some unknown

This seems like a reasonable opinion when you think about the training data size and imagine that any given output is some kind of interpolation of some unknown large number of training examples all from different people. If it’s borrowing snippets from tens or hundreds or thousands of sources, then who’s copyrights are being violated? Remixing in music seems to be withstanding some amount of legal scrutiny, as long as the remix is borrowing from multiple sources and the music is clearly different and original. It gets harder to stand behind a blanket claim that LLMs or any AI we’ve got falls under fair use when they keep repeatedly reproducing complete and identifiable individual works and clearly violating copyright laws in specific instances. The models might be remixing and/or transformative most of the time, but we have proof that they don’t do that every time nor all the time… yet. Maybe the lawsuits will be the impetus we need to fix the AIs so they don’t reproduce specific works, and thus make the fair use claim solid and actually defensible?