Sure you will. It's right there, in PNG encoding or what have you. With nothing more than the compressed file and general purpose tools you can reliably put it on your screen.

> And many large AIs can recite, verbatim or near-verbatim, many complete works.

This is not the common case and it's not even clear that the reason it can sometimes do this is having been trained on the complete work. The more likely cause is having seen a large number of excerpts from the work which patch together into the whole thing, because it's more likely to output that text if it has seen it multiple times.

This is also clearly not the intent, purpose or typical use of the model. It has no ability to consistently do that.

> Many of the consumers of image models are in fact generating art that they previously would have commissioned from an artist. ... Consumers of code models are, in fact, potentially reducing the total demand for novice programmers.

Those are different people than the holder of the copyright on an arbitrary piece of the training data. Is a fair use determination supposed care about the effect on the market for some entirely independent work from an unrelated third party?

> The model derived from a pile of artistic works is, in fact, directly competing with those artistic works.

It's indirectly competing with artistic works in general.

I mean take the computer out of the loop and think about it this way. Art teachers everywhere reproduce a bunch of existing works for classroom use to train new artists who go into competition with the original artists. That is obviously going to indirectly impact the market for artistic works in general, but I don't think that's how that factor works.