My issue is that your rhetoric of "performatively conflating an organism and a machine" doesn't address the core issue of "humans can learn from art why can't machines". You're essentially saying that you don't like the question so you're refusing to answer it. There is nothing inherently wrong with training machines on existing data, if you want us to believe there is, you need to have some argument about what that would be the case.
Is your argument simply about your interpretation of copyright law and your mentality being that laws are good and breaking them is bad? Because that doesn't seem to be a very informed position to take.
My stated opinion is anyone who comes to an AI conversation and says "I can't tell the difference between organisms and computers" or some variation thereof does in fact have no trouble in practice distinguishing between between their child/ mom/ dad/ BFF and ChatGPT as is in fact questioning from a position of bad faith.
"There is nothing inherently wrong with training machines on existing data..." doesn't really conflate a machine with an organism and isn't what I'm talking about.
If you instead had written "I can read the Cat in the Hat to teach my kid to read why can't I use it to train an LLM?"
Then I do think you would be asking with a certain degree of bad faith, you are perfectly capable of distinguishing those two things, in practice, in your everyday life. You do not in fact see them as equivilent.
Your rhetorical choice to be unable to tell the difference would be performative.
You seem to think I'm arguing copyright policy. I really am discussing rhetoric.
Is your argument simply about your interpretation of copyright law and your mentality being that laws are good and breaking them is bad? Because that doesn't seem to be a very informed position to take.