Tell us you know almost nothing about AI without telling us you know almost nothing about AI challenge completed successfully!

Without any single act of human intervention (before we were even a distinct species) 99.9% of all things that ever lived had gone extinct.

Humans may have slightly increased background processes but, practically speaking, we've contributed to less than 0.1% of all extinctions.

Life dies. Some life survives and then dies. Extinction is the rule and the norm for most species without humans ever having been involved.

Furthermore, humans are part of nature and the universe and not somehow apart or removed from it so, even our 0.1% contribution is also part of natural extinction.

Perhaps it's normal and commonplace for a species to cause some accelerated extinction once it reaches a certain level of technological advancement.

I've said the same in similar articles but it bears repeating: This case will boil down to a few simple factors.

What is the output of the AI? Does it create something new or does it merely regurgitate copy-pasted output?

If it merely spits out pre-existing code then it is clearly a copyright infringement.

However, it should be very clearly noted that simply training an AI model on a dataset does not violate copyright law. The output is key. If the AI creates new versions of, say for example, paintings then those are now new and unique works if they are sufficiently distinct from the originals in the training data set (there is a long history of precedent for testing whether works of art are sufficiently distinct)

This is a fundamental point on which courts will inevitably have to settle. Anything else would not only stifle innovation (because small AI teams could never afford to pay exorbitant licensing fees for data sets while big corps could easily do so) but it would be bad law that flies in the face of centuries of precedent regarding the creation of new and derivative works.

People need to use their brains and see that what Microsoft is doing can be illegal and bad (if code is regurgitated) but, other projects which are training their AI on publicly available data sets are not breaking the law. It all depends on the output.

You cannot copyright a style and you can't police every AI in the world to ensure that no copyrighted work was ever used in their training. That would be a fools errand.

Output is key.

Absolutely not. In a constitutional democracy with an independent judiciary you can challenge ANY state action and you CAN actually win. The constitution is the Supreme law of the land, if a court rules against the state then the state must comply or the government officials who refuse will face criminal penalties.

In China there is no independent judiciary. According to Chinse law the CCP is the ultimate authority. A Chinese court cannot order the government to do anything and if a judge did somehow lose their mind and attempt to go against the government then they wouldn't be a judge for long.

So no, it's not the same. In the US and EU companies often challenge government requests for information and they actually win. In China that's impossible.