@david_chisnall Hence why copyright was created: an artificial valve to let genuine creativity be profitable while leveraging the advantages of the new technology. In a similar vein, I think trying to shoehorn LLMs into our existing paradigm of "copyright" and "transformative work" is a fruitless endeavor, it just won't fit. We need either an amendment for copyright that answers to LLMs' impact on society and needs no justification, or the replacement of copyright with some different framework.

@david_chisnall your social objection resonates much more with me (and it's the kind of advocacy I've been promoting so far among peers wrt. AI): no matter what reasonable arguments can be made about the nature of LLMs, their harms to society are factual. Much like with the printing press, the technology just clashed with how the world around it worked, and it damaged the very people it fed from. (cont)

@david_chisnall I feel conflicted about the technical argument: lossy compression is not a binary but a spectrum. The amount of loss makes the result vary smoothly from "perfect reproduction" to "completely unrecognizable random corruption". IMO, law needs stable categories to determine outcomes, and when none are present it needs to create them, so I wouldn't be surprised if "gzip" landed on the opposite side than "Claude".