US Copyright Office found AI companies breach copyright. Its boss was fired

The released draft report seems merely to be a litany of copyright holder complaints repeated verbatim, with little depth of reasoning to support the conclusions it makes.

The required reasoning is not very deep though: If an AI reads 100 scientific papers and churns out a new one, it is plagiarism.

If a savant has perfect recall, remembers text perfectly and rearranges that text to create a marginally new text, he'd be sued for breach of copyright.

Only large corporations get away with it.

Plagiarism is not an issue of copyright law, it's an entirely separate system of rules maintained by academia. The US Copyright Office has no business having opinions about it. If a AI^W human reads 100 papers and then churns out a new one this is usually called research.

Please argue in good faith. A new research paper is obviously materially different from "rearranging that text to create a marginally new text".

"Rearranging text" is not what modern LLMs do though, unless you specifically ask them to.

I didn't make this claim. Feel free to bring a cogent argument to a commenter who did.

>I didn't make this claim

???

Did you not literally comment the following?

>A new research paper is obviously materially different from "rearranging that text to create a marginally new text".

What did you mean by that, if that's not your claim?