The allegation is that the model was trained on a copy of the original work that was improperly obtained. The fact that it can produce a summary is being offered as evidence of that claim. You can't be sued for making a reference or whistling a song, nor you could have been sued for being in possession of a pirated copy, only making a pirated copy. Copyright law has many warts, but it's not some Kafkaesque mind prison.

Just because we call both learning, doesn't mean that human learning and machine learning are the same. They most definitely are not the same. Human learning is very lossy.

Even if they were the same, it doesn't mean that bots should have the same rights that people have.

Tom Scott did it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFe9wiDfb0E

The simple fact is that our current handling of copyright is just completely broken on so many levels.

> Is my brain just by the act of existing continually infringes on copyright? Can I be sued because I made a reference to a movie I pirated or because I whistle a song I never bought?

I think it would fall under fair use. But you can imagine what the world can become with microphones and cameras everywhere, which can already run music and speech recognition by themselves, in seconds. What a time to be alive!

if you are a robot that ripped off literally all the data in the world and now resells it in a repackaged form for its own profit, then yes, you can be sued. Talking about whistling a song is pretty absurd in this context.