Nobody is going to stop buying Harry Potter books because they can get an LLM to spit out ~50 words from one of the books. The proportionality factor is very clearly relevant here.
> If LLM companies are allowed to produce market substitutes of original works
Did Meta publish a book written by an LLM?
> The goal of copyright, under US law, is "To promote the progress of science and useful arts".
I would consider training LLMs to be very much in line with those goals.
Not yet, but they'll stop buying books on niche technical subjects.
> Did Meta publish a book written by an LLM?
They don't need to publish a book to substitute original works. They substitute the original work every time they generate a response that is based on the book they substituted.
> I would consider training LLMs to be very much in line with those goals.
Because you're misunderstanding the premise. Original works are the ones that advance art and science. Those are the ones that are supposed to be protected by copyright.
> Instead, Authors contend generically that training LLMs will result in an explosion of works competing with their works — such as by creating alternative summaries of factual events, alternative examples of compelling writing about fictional events, and so on. This order assumes that is so (Opp. 22–23 (citing, e.g., Opp. Exh. 38)). But Authors’ complaint is no different than it would be if they complained that training schoolchildren to write well would result in an explosion of competing works. This is not the kind of competitive or creative displacement that concerns the Copyright Act. The Act seeks to advance original works of authorship, not to protect authors against competition.