> If it isn't "just" a tool, then it did engage in copyright infringement

Just like how the photos taken by a monkey with a camera have no copyright. Human law binds humans.

Correct. The human who shares the copy is the one who engages in copyright infringement.

	▲	margalabargala an hour ago \| parent [-]
		So, let's say that rather than actually touching any copyrighted material, a human merely tells an AI about how to go onto the internet and find copyrighted material, download it, and ingest it for training. The AI, fully autonomously, does so, and after training itself on the material deletes it so no human ever downloads, consumes, or shares it. If we are saying AI is "more than a tool", which seems to be the case courts are leaning since they've ruled AI output without direct human involvement is not copyrightable[0], then the above seems like it would be entirely legal. [0] https://www.copyright.gov/newsnet/2025/1060.html