Raw LLM Responses

As an author who uses AI in multiple steps in my process of writing, I would never consider publishing purely AI-generated words at this point. I can't say never because the models keep getting better and better. But at this stage, they need editing and a human hand in the final output. I do think it's that human element that would allow for copyrighting a work that has AI in it. My concern is in who gets to determine how much is enough to determine copyright. Is the inspector assigned by the copyright office familiar with AI and how authors use AI to create a work of fiction? There are so many different ways that authors are now using AI that don't involve simple prompting that I believe it is going to take experts in AI to reliably evaluate those resulting works by the copyright office. My worry is that this won't happen and works that should be approved won't be. Many of the people who are weighing in on the subject of AI are those people who don't use AI and/or are afraid of AI. As someone who has been studying AI for the last couple of years and learning the best practices of using AI and then teaching those methods to other authors, I see a lot of misinformation on the use of AI. I also see a lot of bullying on the internet by anti-AI users who don't even know how it really works, but still feel qualified to blast and harangue authors who use AI, even going so far as to accusing authors of using AI who might not have. For authors who do admit to using AI, the treatment and ridicule they are subjected to is uncalled for, but persists to the point that only the bravest of the brave will even admit to using AI in their process publicly. While I think this move from the copyright office is the right move, I don't think they took it far enough yet. But I do appreciate what few rights they have given to those of us who are learning how to use AI in our creative process.