To be clear, re several replies:

(1) The post above is not about •my• opinion on the matter. It’s about which legal arguments make sense.

(2) It’s possible for it to be both: it’s a coherent argument to say that some things an LLM does are in fact literal enough reproduction to be copyright violation •and• to say that humans are responsible for the tool. (That is in fact my own position.) The point of the previous post is that while saying “both!” is logically tenable, saying “neither!” is not.