When I read this kind of comment, I feel that the author is accusing me of being a torturer.

LLMs should not get a free pass just because they are new and shiny.
* Some of the LLM creators appear to have stolen copyrighted materials (by downloading torrents of copyrighted materials that were not freely available). I would love to see one or more of those culprits bankrupted after being found guilty.
* Many of the LLM creators or their agents have ignored robots.txt and brought the servers of freely available copyrighted materials to their knees (and non copyrighted material too). It seems that none of the culprits will face any noticeable consequences.
* Some LLM creators have fed so many duplicated copies of copyrighted materials into their training that, with careful prompting, the LLM can regurgitate derivative material. However some of that prompting likely would be considered entrapment if done by police authorities to a human.
* Many people believe that LLMs deprive us all of reasonably priced water and/or electricity and that they create massive pollution. Honestly, I’m sceptical of many of these claims. I believe that there is massive overbuilding of datacentres, however it’s not clear that these datacenters are all built for AI. Much of the overbuilding seems to be speculative by 3rd parties that hope to get AI or cloud customers.
* Many people worry that AI will take their job, and I think that some will. However the consensus in the thoughtful press seems to be that the current wave of redundancies is driven by the consequences of overhiring during the COVID period. Of course, CEOs would prefer to have it known that it was AI rather than their mismanagement,

On the other hand, the only case ruling on the copyright status of LLM output that I know about seems to have carefully crafted to state that the specific LLM was not capable being a copyright holder, while allowing that a future tool might be.

Governments and courts in Europe, China, and the USA, largely seem to support the concept that the output of an LLM should be held to the same burden of proof for copyright infringement as a human person. That is: can the output be shown to infringe the expression of a specific work rather than the concepts and ideas.

In summary, I’d request that the virulently anti-LLM commenters treat others with respect and specifically not tag me as a monster because I start from a different place than you.