If creating an LLM is copyright infringement, then we could say that a human reading a book is copyright infringement.
It's obvious that this technology was not considered when developing current legal concepts, so if the concepts produce unsatisfactory outcomes, they need to be reevaluated.
Why do people so easily and readily conflate the two? Is it just because it makes the AI hype sound more real, if you compare it 1:1 with a human brain?
Machines and humans are not equal or even in the ballpark of being similar in any way other than superfluous ones, and should (and already are) held by different standards, both legal and otherwise.
Do you simply disagree that there are issues worth addressing?
Also, typically the entity that carries ideas can not be owned by a cooperation. So there is a completely new relationship between property and ideas at play.
In what way is that not sufficient?