> which they didnt because it learns “like a human” My preferred rejoinder: If it's so much like a human that it qualifies under copyright law, then we ought t

> which they didnt because it learns “like a human” My preferred rejoinder: If it's so much like a human that it qualifies under copyright law, then we ought to be talking about whether these companies are guilty of (A) enslaving a minor and (B) being material accomplices in any copyright infringement minor commits under their control.