[deeviant]

> The obvious issue is that copyrighted material was used without permission

I think you are also dancing around the realities of the situation, to your benefit. What does "used" mean here? If I listen to Enter Sandman by Metallica and learn you can make a cool song in Em using natural minor scale and the blues scale, then right my own unique rock song in Em using blues scales, is that "using" Metallica's song without permission?

The hidden part of all of these copyright claims against LLMs is that they want new rights, expanded rights. They want rights to learn from their material, a right that has never existed before. Sure, they try to frame it by pointing at regurgitation cases and scream "they are stealing our work!", but then they absolutely do not stop at the request that the model not regurgitate their material, but that they own all derivative thought resultant from their works.

Lets take this to the extreme, let's say we get to sentient AI. Does that mean copyright owners own the actions of all sentience AI beings, because they learn from their copyrighted material? Do you have two systems of laws that try to dictate how an artificial but sentient being can learn, and how a biological one can? Putting aside the question of the possibility and timeline of sentient artificial beings, the legal ramifications devolve into absurdity immediately if you start with what copyright holders are asking for now.

[NemoNobody]

Yes! Thank you