>>> Despite that, Humans can read a book, get inspiration, and write a new book and not be litigated against. >> The fatal flaw in your reasoning: machines are

>>> Despite that, Humans can read a book, get inspiration, and write a new book and not be litigated against. >> The fatal flaw in your reasoning: machines aren't humans. You can't reason that a machine has rights from the fact a human has them. Otherwise it's murder to recycle a car. > We are talking about the rights of the humans training the models and the humans using the models to create new things. Then that's even easier, because that prevents appeals to things humans do, like learning, from muddying the waters. If "training the models" entails loading up copyrighted works into your system (e.g. encoded them during training), you've just copied them into a retrieval system and violated copyright based on established precedent. And people have prompted verbatim copyrighted text out of well-known LLMs, which makes it even clearer. And then to defend LLM training you're left with BS akin to claiming an ASCII encoded copy of a book not a copyright violation, because the book is paper and ASCII is numbers.