It's extremely speculative to claim that LLM models are basically doing what humans do. There is very clearly something that isn't right about that because in o

It's extremely speculative to claim that LLM models are basically doing what humans do. There is very clearly something that isn't right about that because in order for a human to learn to speak and converse and they don't need to imbibe the entire corpus of all written text in human history - which is basically what we're doing with these LLMs. What we're giving them is vast amounts of data which is totally unlike how humans work. There's very clearly some gap here between what a LLM is doing and what a human is doing. So you can't use that as a basis to justify why it's ok for OpenAI to operate like this. To put it another way, let's say I turn the dial all the way the other way, I train the worlds crappest LLM on NYT material, it massively massively overfits and all it will ever return is verbatim snippets of the NYT. Is that copyright infringement? The core part of the argument here is actually just that OpenAI doesn't want to adhere to what the current standard is for using copyrighted material, if you want to use it and create something new with it you need to license the material. Since OpenAI's LLM isn't actually like a human it needs to license such a vast dataset that it would be uneconomical to run the business without stealing all the content.