I've seen many of these "AI" offerings regurgitate their training data verbatim. If chatgpt were miraculously immune to this, despite taking the same basic approach as everybody else, and without significant efforts to prevent regurgitation, then the onus is on them to prove that.

Researchers have gotten large chunks of verbatim text. Suggesting it’s only infringing if the entire work is reproduced is legally incorrect and therefore irrelevant.

https://mashable.com/article/chatgpt-revealed-personal-data-...

> Suggesting it’s only infringing if the entire work is reproduced is legally incorrect

It may not be conclusive, but it's highly suggestive:

> Amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole: Under this factor, courts look at both the quantity and quality of the copyrighted material that was used. If the use includes a large portion of the copyrighted work, fair use is less likely to be found; if the use employs only a small amount of copyrighted material, fair use is more likely.

> https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/

Context is important when reading that, just 7 words can be copyright infringement.

It's not an argument, it is a question. I'd like to know the answer as to whether the method matters to the courts.