As I said, human cognition is a special case.

The open question is how to handle machines that mimic the process.

> The open question is how to handle machines that mimic the process.

It's not really an open question, except for software engineers who've talked themselves into thinking of humans as computers. A machine is not a human mind, so does not benefit from the legal exceptions and rights granted to the latter.

This has nothing to do with how things operate, or whether an LLM is like a mind. It's a legal question regarding large scale compilation of data.

"A machine is not a human mind, so does not benefit from the legal exceptions and rights granted to the latter."

Five years ago this was true. It likely will not be true, eventually. The only question is where we are in this process.

> This has nothing to do with how things operate, or whether an LLM is like a mind.

Huh? You brought up "cognition," but now that has nothing to do with it?

> It's a legal question regarding large scale compilation of data.

The legal question of does "copyright goes away if your violation is big enough?"

>> "A machine is not a human mind, so does not benefit from the legal exceptions and rights granted to the latter."

> Five years ago this was true. It likely will not be true, eventually. The only question is where we are in this process.

Because of the meme magic of enthusiastic software engineers will end the "carbon chauvinism" of humanity forever?

Yeah, right.

I remarked on how human cognition is treated as a magical process with respect to copyright law.

This is just a legal fact. It has nothing to do with how an LLM operates internally, or whether an LLM is at all similar to a human mind in terms of internal mechanics.

> "The legal question of does "copyright goes away if your violation is big enough?"

Don't be fatuous.

> "Because of the meme magic"

No, because of the way the law works.

Carbon chauvinism at its finest.