No worries! Definitely important to have healthy relationships with device usage.

Your statements on rights of IP owners seems to imply that the vast majority of open-source licenses are meaningless. It also seems to be a parallel to the legal cases brought by the family of Henrietta Lacks, who’s cells were cultured without her consent and have been used extensively in research and pharmaceutical development, bringing in significant profits, while neither Ms. Lacks, nor her family saw a dime.

Not 1:1, as Lacks involves human research and biomedical research but, it certainly rhymes as there is a lack of consent and unshared profits.

Let me ask you this. If you have a epub of a book on your computer and you select it and press Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V-- have you violated copyright laws? You’ve made a copy, after all

Depending on the use, possibly. If I intended to sell copies of it, almost definitely. Likewise if I intended to create derivative art that did not fall within the bounds of fair use without attributing credit or license from the holder of the copyright.

Speaking from an ethical, rather than purely legal perspective, profiting off of training an LLM or similar neural network on someone else’s work, in a manner that competes with the source work, without their permission or giving them a share of the proceeds, is hard to imagine as ethical in any manner that does not involve extraordinary mental gymnastics.

On the other hand, I would not see anything wrong with doing so for one’s personal enjoyment, if there is no harm done to the IP owner.