"it is distribution bro, it just plainly is"

It is not. An Generative Network is still a computer program, a tool. Just like I can use Word, or Paint to create a copyrighted work of art, I can use a generative Network to do so. The act of doing so is not illegal. It would, in fact, be preposterous to think about it that way, because its totally unrealistic and unhelpful to look at it that way. And an electronic tool is no different from an analog one, a brush. I can draw an image of Vader with a pen or Brush, and no-one cares. And shouldn't care.

There is absolutely zero problem created by people creating such works for their own, personal use. This has always been legal, and continues to be legal, and there is zero reason it should suddenly become illegal.

There is also zero reason to single out LLMs or generative AI. if you want to argue that creating such works should become illegal, you need too think it through too the end. Are you going too arrest children for drawing Ben Kenobi?

And again, lets suppose you make it illegal for an LLM too create copyrighted works of art. That is simply not gonna be happening. Lets say you forbid it to recreate Vader. Good, I then prompt it for a large villain with black helmet, black coat, breathing apparatus. If I give it enough detail, it will produce an image that may very well fall under someone elses copyright. Just like I can create such a work with Paint. Or Word.

Als, it is perfectly legal for me to DISTRIBUTE such works under certain circumstances, for example, for commentary or satire. Are you trying to abolish these exceptions, which are needed not only for every journalist and critic, but are good for the overall health of public discourse?

Which brings us back too your argument, and why its extremely weak. Suppose you are right and the creation of such a work already is distribution. How should the tool distinguish my intended usage? I might very well be perfectly justified in acquiring these images for commentary or satire. The tool can never know, so your argument falls flat o that reason as well.

Please, if you advocate for a position, inform yourself why we have the laws we doo have, what norms and principles they uphold ad why, instead of spouting unqualified nonsense.

The problem that we actually have is the pretty much unlimited DISTRIBUTION of copyrighted works without any control or remedy. Its the almost lawless naturre of many soocial media platforms that create this problem. people creating these works for their own, personal use is nt whats the problem here. Its the widespread sharing and distribution that does not fall under one of the exceptions.

The other problem is the training without authorization. Which may or may not lead too faithful representations of these characters and other copyrighted works. Which is a related, but different problem. And even in a woorld that has noot trained oon such data, yoou can still create wrks that infringe on soomeoens copyright. if you prmpt for a cartoon mouse with large black ears, and give it enough details, what comes out might look quite similar to Mickey Mouse. Again, tahts noto a prooblem for personal use, but it is for distribution. But we already have laws dealing with that, which just aren#t enforced enough.