> If you're going to post thinly veiled implications that I didn't read your comment

It was a statement, not an implication.

You still haven't replied to the point in the original comment about compensating the people who do this work, so I think it's quite obvious that you haven't read it.

>You still haven't replied to the point in the original comment about compensating the people who do this work, so I think it's quite obvious that you haven't read it.

Issac newton discovers the theory of gravity. He advanced the sum of human knowledge, so fair enough, he should get compensated.

Alice rehashes that and puts it into her encyclopedia, allowing others to learn the theory of gravity.

Bob writes an algorithm for training a chatbot that can produce responses rehashing the theory of gravity, also allowing others to learn the theory of gravity.

Why should Alice be compensated but not Bob? Neither discovered the theory of gravity, so it's not like by funding Alice we're helping discover quantum physics or whatever. It's also not obvious that Alice's work is more valuable. A chatbot interface is often better at teaching someone than a rehashed overview. Of course, you can try to fix this by declaring that human work is valuable and an AI model isn't, by fiat, but that's just a cope and a far cry from the original principle of "trained on [...] human knowledge, so their outputs should belong to humanity"

None of this matters for applying the law, because the law just says only human created works are eligible for copyright protection, but that's not the argument OP was trying to invoke.

Finally none of this actually matters because OP just bites the bullet and says that secondary sources shouldn't be eligible for copyright, period.