Comment by Ukv

> Copyright was build to protect the artist from unauthorized copy by a human not by a machine (a machine wildly beyond their imagination at the time I mean), so the input and output limitations of humans were absolutely taken into account when writing such laws

Copyright law was spurred by the spread of the printing press, a machine which has ability to output full replicas. It does not assume human-like input/output limitations.

> A fair ruling would have declared that authors must be able to forbid the usage of their work as training data for any given model because the "transformative" processes that are being executed are wildly beyond what the writers of the law knew were even possible

Copyright's basis in the US is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". Declaring a transformative use illegal because it's so novel would seem to run directly counter to that.

To my understanding it's generally the opposite (a pre-existing use with an established market that the rightsholder had expected to exploit) that would weigh against a finding of fair use.