I do not propose moderating "AI expression" - I explicitly propose otherwise, and further propose mandating that the user is provided with source attribution in

I do not propose moderating "AI expression" - I explicitly propose otherwise, and further propose mandating that the user is provided with source attribution information, so that they can choose not to infringe, should they be at risk of doing so, and should they find that a concern (or even choose to acquire a license instead). Whether this is technologically feasible, I'm not sure, but it very much feels like to me that it should be. > A digression from copyright - portraying models as a "blank canvas" is itself a poor characterization, output might be triggered by a prompt, like a query against a database, but its ultimately a reflection of the contents of the training data. I'm not sure how to respond to this if at all, I think I addressed how I characterize the functionality of these models in sufficient detail. This just reads to me like an "I disagree" - and that's fine, but then that's also kinda it. Then we disagree and that's okay.