> You're applying 20th century law and logic to 21st century technology.

Until we pass 21st century laws, thats what applies.

Or a court ruling.

>The obvious analog is facial recognition, deemed privacy violating by laws and courts in multiple jurisdictions, vs a human doing the same thing manually.

It was deemed "privacy violating" under specific privacy laws within those jurisdictions.

i.e. go pass a law amending copyright law if you think so. there's no substantial reproduction here, in the context of stable diffusion, until there is, and then yeah in that instance it's probably a copyright violation, like a substantial reproduction made by a human would be. but training itself, probably not. but yes, there have been no rulings on it in this context.

I'm aware privacy law applied to facial recognition, not copyright law. Nowhere did I imply that it was copyright law. I brought it up to illustrate that "activity + human" vs "activity + computer" can differ in legality for the same activity.

> go pass a law amending copyright law if you think so

I don't need to do anything. Let's see until one of these cases come to the courts. You're talking as though it's a foregone conclusion that they'll rule the way you think. I wouldn't be so sure myself.