Raw LLM Responses

I think you explained it largely well; however, I think the learning argument you dismissed weakens some of your case. It doesn't argue it all that well and boiled down to "really bro?" Which isn't an argument and ignores why the argument at present even exists and is problematic. There is legitimate merit to that argument due to technical reasons. The problem with the learning argument is that the current definition of learning in a legal sense does fully apply to how AI generates. It iterates millions of images rates them and integrates the best then refines it. As far as the current legal definition of learning is concerned. It's fine. You can safely say it's the equivalent to if an artist was to draw an image thousands of time. You'd see wild growth. Which is problematic as that isn't the same level of nuance as human learning. To properly attack the learning argument, you need to properly define human learning to differentiate it from machine learning thus having a legal vector of attack. You also need to set the precedence so it has a leg to stand on. I agree it's functionally different, but in legal terms right now it is not. The last point which is less what you rebuttaled and more the lawsuit itself. That's the reality of stuff being sold as a product, which is what the lawsuit is about, hence the license at the end. Training on the data doesn't seem to be the crux of the problem in the lawsuit even if that's why it happened. It's the actually distribution of their IP's that's the problem. That's really sketchy, as technically drawing IP's in your own style and charging someone for it but not paying the originally IP owner is also theft. That's a two way street. I've seen countless artist defend that specifically. No you can't draw iron man then sell it without paying Disney it's dues. If you're going to attack AI on that front you also attack artist on that front. In that regard it's the same thing. On the flip side for personal usage and not to be sold, you get a lot more leniency. That's purely from the legal framework. This also extends further out as I believe open AI art model stems from a education license, which lets bypass a lot of the copy right infringements(and If I recall incorrectly this specific line doesn't stand) Additionally you also run into website TOS. A lot of websites. especially youtube have things in their TOS that allows anything on them to be used, or resold from their platform. Which means if you can prove you paid for access or were allowed access to the tools of the platform, you now need to bring in these websites themselves into the legal argument. Hopefully some important legal terms are defined that allows for better regulation. Additionally hopefully artist start making proper licenses to use their work so they can also open up lawsuits and get their slice of the pie. Hopefully this starts applying to the writing side of AI as well. Granted that has additionally legal issues.