The difference is humans draw an understanding of the text and adapt that into future knowledge, which influences the writting. LLMs just make the text and predict the most likely output based on known data. Their is no understanding or adaptation. It isn’t intelligent, it’s just predictive.

Yes. Creative work is made by creative people. Writing is creative work. A computer cannot be creative, and thus generative AI is a disgusting perversion of what you wanna call “literature”. Fuck, writing and art have always been primarily about self-expression. Computers can’t express themselves with original thoughts. That’s the whole entire point. And this is why humanistic studies are important, by the way.

The trivialization doesn’t negate the point though, and LLMs aren’t intelligence.

The AI consumed all of that content and I would bet that not a single of the people who created the content were compensated, but the AI strictly on those people to produce anything coherent.

I would argue that yes, generative artificial stupidity doesn’t meet the minimum bar of original thought necessary to create a standard copyrightable work unless every input has consent to be used, and laundering content through multiple generations of an LLM or through multiple distinct LLMs should not impact the need for consent.

Without full consent, it’s just a massive loophole for those with money to exploit the hard work of the masses who generated all of the actual content.