My understanding is that the law ultimately cares about the market impact on the copyright holder, and balancing that with the interests of the public. I don't think the courts will be swayed by arguments based on technicalities like this.
The law doesn't care about technology technicalities.
It cares about legal technicalities.
The law doesn't care, for instance, that the MP3 file of Beyoncé's latest hit is not the same bits in the same order as the original master file created when she recorded it. That holds true no matter how many times you re-encode it into different formats.
As things stand, there has been no definitive ruling on the matter of ML model training and copyright; I don't know how that will end up shaking out, and honestly, I'm not yet sure how I think things should shake out in any detail. I think that people whose works are being used to fuel massive profit-generating engines for the very wealthy should have some right to give or revoke consent, but I'm not at all sure offhand if there's a realistic way to do that without serious unintended consequences.
But I am sure that arguing that the precise technical nature of how the transformations are performed means that nothing is actually being "copied" should not, and is unlikely to, hold much legal water.
"Technicality" here means an argument that follows a strict/formal interpretation to arrive at a conclusion that is inconsistent with the principles and objectives of the law.
