This would be a separate argument, though, from the notion I responded to above that the difference in the processes of a human mind and LLM are the reason why "learning" from copyrighted material is a violation of copyright in one case and not the other.

In my view the biggest issue to raise is the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use). The most spectacular example of damage would be stackoverflow, thought stackoverflow content is not copyrighted. I think there is little doubt that LLM's drive attention from original sources. That might be deemed damaging, especially in the long run.

There's no damage to the potential market or value of the works because they're given away for free by their owners.

There may be, because technically copy/pasting SO code is governed by CC BY-SA 4.0 license which requires attribution and things aren't so obvious especially for commercial purpose.

I’m sure there’ll be a human on the books, on paper.