If you took a pen and paper and traced over an image that's also a copy, even though you used a human.
Saying that Generative AI is a compression algorithm shows a lack of understanding of the issues and technology at play.
Therefore, by definition and AI cannot create a derivative work. Because it's not human.
I see no reason to grant computer programs human rights. I think a lot of people would have a hard time articulating some reasons to do that. So they don't, and talk about the technology instead. I think that doesn't matter. If you can't tell me, and convince humanity, why a computer program should be granted human rights then I don't think we can even get to a point where the technology itself matters.
LLM's and other generative AI are not designed nor are particularly good at this. What they are good at is returning new results using 'learning' it has developed via training.
If I want to send someone a sample of code, I'll use zip. If I want to generate code from a prompt, I'll use a llm.
Because of what?
How does ZIP compare to a LLM at answering a prompt to write a short story about cats in the style of Romeo and Juliet?
It's actually the other part of the parent comment that's wrong, and a large part of learning something is adding stuff to your dictionary.