I think that's up to the courts to decide on a case by case basis, just like with human-produced content someone alleges as infringing. Humans of course create

I think that's up to the courts to decide on a case by case basis, just like with human-produced content someone alleges as infringing. Humans of course create things by drawing from past influences, and I would argue so does AI. In fact, I would say that nothing and nobody starts out original. We need copying to build a foundation of knowledge and understanding. Everything is a copy of something else, the only difference is how much is actually copied, and how obvious it is. Copying is how we learn. We can't introduce anything new until we're fluent in the language of our domain, and we do that through emulation. So to me the legal argument of AI vs copyright, comes down to how similar a particular result is from the original, and that's a subjective call that a judge or jury would have to make.