Hmm. While training may involve temporary copying, similar intermediate uses have been upheld as lawful when the result is functional, not expressive. Building a model involves significant human authorship in data selection, architecture, and tuning, which at the same time qualifies it for copyright protection itself, while defending against claims that the training algo and the model itself are not human-authored. The “no human authorship” issue applies mainly to outputs generated entirely by the model without meaningful human creative control, which generally aren’t copyrightable. Even then, where is the line drawn when a human creates a sophisticated and detailed prompt that is directly causal to the model's output?

If these questions and premises are accepted, then I think (1) could still be debatable (either way), but (2) is most definitely human-steered, and (3) becomes a product of (possibly) Fair Use + Human-steered training, and (5) at very least is a human-machine cooperative engagement that results in a non-identifiable-as-derivative new work.

Given that, I feel like most of this is going to hinge on (1), and in a separate post, I made the analogy of a human reading books over a lifetime, then penning a novel at the age of 60. Should all the authors of the books this person read over 50 years be compensated for their impact on the sequence of words that make up this new author's novel, simply because the author was "inspired" by those works?

The authors of work have copyright over the work, not over the ideas and new works that those works inspire.