> You insist on using the word "learning" to refer to completely different concepts as if you don't read anything I write.
i read it, and i disagree that they are completely different concepts. I am describing the action of "extracting information, structure, ideas and form" from a literary work. I used the word "learn" as a shortcut.
A consciousness is not required to perform the action above. Human rights also does not apply to a machine - we aren't talking about sentient ai being given rights that would normally be reserved for humans.
The right to "learn" from literary works is not an exclusive right granted by the copyright law to the holder. A tool would only launder copyright if the tool was used to reproduce the literary work, or a derivative of said work. But if the tool is producing new works, but expresses similar ideas (which is what a lot of the ML models allow you to do), then those expressions should not violate copyright.
As for the model itself, i also argue that it does not constitute a derivative work of the training dataset. I am comparing it to a human brain, which itself is not a derivative work of the training that went into producing it (e.g., the authors of all of the books said human brain read does not have a claim on the brain itself).
Of course, society could opt to change this - specifically add a clause to the copyright law to grant an extra right to the holder regarding ML consumption of their literary work. This has not happened yet, and i sincerely wish it does not. It merely stifles progress.