This is a truly awful argument that keeps coming up. It relies on the false equivalence between training an AI (a technical process that involves copying a work into computer storage), and a human being experiencing a work, which doesn't involve any kind of copying (and usually involves the human legally purchasing the work, which AI companies did not do).

There is a legal difference as well as a technical difference. AIs don't learn the same way human brains do. The law does not treat these things the same. You may want to draw an analogy between the two and say they're "basically the same", but they are not basically the same. They aren't the same at all, outside of a very weak analogy. Is training kind of sort of like human learning? Yes. That doesn't mean anything. Dogs are kind of sort of like children, but if you try to treat your child the way you treat your dog, you end up in prison. Because children aren't dogs, either in reality, or in the eyes of the legal system.

Please, AI boosters, stop using this one. Human brains aren't clocks. Human brains aren't computers. Human brains aren't LLMs. AI training does not mimic human learning in any significant way.