I suggest reading my entire comment.

I did, buddy. You’re just wrong. You can copyright data. A work can be “just data”. Again, we’re not talking about a set of measurements of the natural world.

It’s only a work if your brain is a work. (…) The weights that make up a neural network represent encodings into neurons, and as such should be treated the same way as neural encodings in a brain.

Okay, I see how you have the hot take that a generative model is brain-like to you, but that’s a hot take – it’s not a legally accepted fact that a trained model is not a work.

You understand that, right? You do get that this hasn’t been debated in court, and what you think is correct is not necessarily how the legal system will rule on the matter, yeah?

Because the argument that a trained generative model is a work is also pretty coherent. It’s a thing that you can distribute, even monetise. It isn’t a person, it isn’t an intelligence, it’s essentially part of a program, and it’s the output of labour performed by someone.

The fact that something models neurons does not mean it can’t be a work. That’s not… coherent. You’ve jumped from A to Z and your argument to get there is “human brain has neurons”. Like, okay? Does that somehow mean anything that is vaguely neuron-like is not a work? So if I make a mechanical neuron, I can’t copyright it? I can’t patent it?

No, that’s absurd.