Technology

Plagiarism is not the same as copyright infringement. Why you think people probably plagiarize is doubly irrelevant then.

Analysis is definitely relevant, since to create a work that does not infringe on copyright

Show me literally any example of the defendant's use of "analysis" having any impact whatsoever in a copyright infringement case or a law that explicitly talks about it, or just stop repeating that it is in any way relevant to copyright.

But bring them all together in one place again without adding new patterns

Wrong. The "all together" and "without adding new patterns" are not legal requirements. You are constantly trying to push the definition of copyright infringement to be more extreme to make it easier for you to argue.

you generally can take ideas from a copyrighted work, but not the expression of those ideas

Unfortunately, an AI has no concept of ideas, and it simply encodes patterns, whatever they might happen to be. Again, you're morphing the discussion to make an argument.

Mario’s likeness isn’t in the model, but it’s patterns are.

Mario's likeness has to be encoded into the model in some way. Otherwise, this would not have been the image generated for "draw an italian plumber from a video game". There is absolutely nothing in the prompt to push GPT-4 to combine those elements. There are also no "new" patterns, as you put it. That's exactly the point of the article. As they put it:

Clearly, these models did not just learn abstract facts about plumbers—for example, that they wear overalls and carry wrenches. They learned facts about a specific fictional Italian plumber who wears white gloves, blue overalls with yellow buttons, and a red hat with an “M” on the front.

These are not facts about the world that lie beyond the reach of copyright. Rather, the creative choices that define Mario are likely covered by copyrights held by Nintendo.

This is contradictory to how you present it as "taking ideas".

You have absolutely no legal basis to claim they are infringement

You're mixing up different things. I'm saying that the image contains infringing material, which is hopefully not something you have to be convinced about. The production of an obviously infringing image, without the infringing elements having been provided in the prompt, is used to show how this information is encoded inside the model in some form. Whether this copyright-protected material exists in some form inside the model is not an equivalent question to whether this is copyright infringement. You are right that the courts have not decided on the latter, but we have been talking about the former. I repeat your position which I was directly responding to before:

What it detects are empirical, factual observations about the material it is shown, which cannot be copyrighted.