Raw LLM Responses

That's not as simple as it seems. Material used to "train an AI" is turning into somewhat of a way for wealthy corporations to cut themselves a piece of the AI pie. Prior to AI, nobody would bat an eye at the idea that humans look at other people's work and derive their own innovation or inspiration from that. Nobody is sitting there thinking George Lucas needed to pay Kurosawa for "training" on his films when writing Star Wars. The idea that an AI company should be liable to an artist because their material was used to train the AI is a bit bizarre, legally speaking. Generally the issue doesn't arise until someone is trying to make commercial use of the copyrighted material. The argument artists are making is that because AI itself is a product, that's commercial use. But that's basically like suing some artist who has seen the work of another artist and may have some derivative style because of that. Historically we've only ever been concerned with the output from the artist, not the input.