> Characterizing the discussion behind this as "sophistry" is a fundamentally unserious take

What a joke. Sorry, but no. I don't think is unserious at all. What's unserious is saying this.

> and the training material was obtained legally

And assuming everyone should take it at face value. I hope you understand that going on a tech forum and telling people they aren't being nuanced because a Judge in Alabama that can barely unlock their phone weighed in on a massively novel technology with global implications, yes, reads deeply unserious. We're aware the U.S. legal system is a failure and the rest of the world suffers for it. Even your President routinely steals music for campaign events, and stole code for Truth Social. Your copyright is a joke that's only there to serve the fattest wallets.

These judges are not elected, they are appointed by people whose pockets are lined by these very corporations. They don't serve us, they are here to retrofit the law to make illegal things corporations do, legal. What you wrote is thought terminating.

What I wrote is an encouragement to investigate the actual state of the law when you're talking about legal topics. That's the opposite of thought-terminating.