This argument is backwards. George Carlin is a human, and he's the one whose rights were presumably violated. It's the creator of the fake George Carlin stand-u

This argument is backwards. George Carlin is a human, and he's the one whose rights were presumably violated. It's the creator of the fake George Carlin stand-up special's job to prove their behavior was legal. Saying that the AI George Carlin was human-written only means that, if creating your own George Carlin special is fair-use for some reason, then the human gets to claim copyright over that special. If it's AI then there's no copyright - at least, over the parts created by AI. Just to make things even more confusing, this also has nothing to do with the copyright on the training set data. If the AI you used had a 100% licensed training set, you still have to worry about how the AI's legally uncreative[0] contribution to the work dilutes your ownership of it. [0] As in, whether or not AI is creative, as a matter of law, it's not creative.