> There's no reason to believe that weights are copyrightable. I know this is a long, nuanced, ongoing discussion. I'm very interested in it, but haven't read

> There's no reason to believe that weights are copyrightable. I know this is a long, nuanced, ongoing discussion. I'm very interested in it, but haven't read up on it for years. Could you elaborate a bit on the latest? I was always in the camp that opined that "weights" are too broad a term for any sensible discussions about conclusions like "are (not) copyrightable". Clearly a weight that's the average of its training data is not copyrightable. But also, surely, weights that are capable of verbatim reproduction of non-trivial copyrightable training data are, because they're just a strange storage medium for the copyright data. What am I missing?