> You have shifted from "very easy not to infringe" to "don't infringe frequently", which concedes the original point that humans can and do produce infringing code without intent.

Practically speaking humans do not produce code that would be found in court to be infringing without intent.

It is theoretically possible, but it is not something that a reasonable person would foresee as a potential consequence.

That’s the difference.

> LLM memorization/regurgitation is a documented failure mode, not normal operation (nor typical case).

Exactly. It is a documented failure mode that you as a user have no capacity to mitigate or to even be aware is happening.

Double standards are perfectly fine. LLMs are not conscious beings that deserve protection under the law.

>not settled.

What appears to likely be settled is that human authorship is required, so there’s no way that an LLM could qualify for independent creation.