What the courts do is one thing, what the law should say is another one.

One problem I see with LLMs is that it is killing the job of many artists by using the copyrighted work of those very artists. The more the artists work, e.g. by doing truly original content that an LLM cannot generate because it was not trained on that, the better the LLMs get at killing the job of the artists.

It is a very weird situation: the LLMs need the artists in order to finish killing the artists. When that is finally done, it's not clear at all that LLMs will be able to generate new truly original content or whether they will be stuck in the world that the artists created before dying.

It's very different from, say, a calculator that replaced the job that real person had. Because the calculator can do at least as well as the human was doing, and the calculator was not feeding from the output of those humans.

I think the most likely outcome is that AI will eventually produce art that most humans prefer to that created by humans, and humans may not even remember a time when art came from humans.

Are you old enough to remember when humans planned in advance which video you would watch next?

> I think the most likely outcome is that AI will eventually produce art that most humans prefer to that created by humans

Well if it prevents humans from producing art, of course this will happen. Doesn't mean it will be better art. I would argue that it will be worse by definition.

> Are you old enough to remember when humans planned in advance which video you would watch next?

Very much so. But now that time is back.

Most people I know do exactly that. The time when everyone consumed TV passively is over.