Absolutely, but that is what makes the relevancy of the fact interesting. If you could load my brain into Python, would it then become copyright infringement, despite the content being logically unchanged?
Memorising a picture using a fleshy model is fine, so the raw fact that art has been found in a black box model here isn't necessarily relevant. Might be. Might not be.
I understand what you’re saying, but if you could load Python into your brain, I suspect the laws would quickly change to reflect that new reality.
The biological/evolutionary limits of humans are core assumptions of current laws, and I’d argue that the operating environment has changed enough to make those assumptions outdated.
> Memorising a picture using a fleshy model is fine
I imagine the fleshy model is fine not because it’s fleshy, but because it’s the model that people were targeting when writing current laws.
Even if no memorization occurred, there are still big questions about why such a model should be treated like anything other than just another computer program from a legal perspective.
Memorising a picture using a fleshy model is fine, so the raw fact that art has been found in a black box model here isn't necessarily relevant. Might be. Might not be.