>It would be both. Or to put it a different way, how would you distinguish one from the other? No, it's not both. Have you engaged in any effort to understand

>It would be both. Or to put it a different way, how would you distinguish one from the other? No, it's not both. Have you engaged in any effort to understand the law here? Copyright doesn't prohibit independent creation. I'm not sure how much more simple I can make that for you. In one scenario there is copying, in the other there isn't. The facts make it clear, when something is copied it is illegal. >The question remains whether ingesting the article is the reason it gets output in response to a given prompt, when it could have happened either way. This can't actually be serious? This isn't credible. You are saying there is no difference between ingesting it and outputting the results vs not ingesting it and outputting the results. Anything to back this up at all? >This is a case of first impression. We don't really know what they're going to do yet. But "there exists some input that causes it to output the article" isn't any kind of offensive novelty; lots of boring existing stuff does that when the input itself is based on the article. "First impression" (something you claim) doesn't mean ignore existing copyright law. One side is arguing this isn't first impression at all, it's just rote copying. > But "there exists some input that causes it to output the article" isn't any kind of offensive novelty You said its novel, I called it plain copying. >lots of boring existing stuff does that when the input itself is based on the article. You are saying its first impression... not me.