The machine argument makes sense to me. It shifts the blame from the machine creators to the machine users. A copying machine creator is not responsible for mis

The machine argument makes sense to me. It shifts the blame from the machine creators to the machine users. A copying machine creator is not responsible for misuse of the machine, nor is it illegal to simply Xerox a copyrighted work. Distributing the copy is where the law comes into play, and it targets the person distributing it, not the machine or the manufacturer. Obviously, it seems impossible for an LLM user to verify the legality of the output, so it seems like the only conclusion is not to use it, or to only release your works under copyleft. I guess an alternate interpretation is treating them like gun manufacturers. They aren't the ones pulling the trigger, but one could argue their business and marketing practices are done negligently enough for them to carry a portion of the responsibility. I guess then one must show that the LLM creators are sufficiently negligent in preventing misuse of their product at the same scale.