[plagiarist]

IIRC courts have already ruled AI-generated works cannot have copyright. So there is already a legal distinction between a human and a model creating works.

I also doubt "humans are just a larger Markov chain than the LLM and they're allowed to" will hold up in court.

[brookst]

I don’t see what eligibility to have works protected has to do with legality of learning.

I really hope “copyright can be used to prohibit reading and learning” does not hold up in court.

Copyright is, and should be, a protection from unauthorized reproduction. Extending it to protect the abstract ideas would be a disaster. And extending it to control stylistic learning would be even worse.

[plagiarist]

You are not understanding and making a lot of assumptions isn't a substitute for that.

[brookst]

Hard to argue with that level of reasoning and sourcing.