Raw LLM Responses

this ruling is too simplistic and misses the point of the original precedent. IP only being granted to a person (this now includes corporations, but that's different topic) was intended to prevent a person from claiming a product of nature or some other natural process as their own.... "one cannot own the sky", kind of thing. today we have tools to help with the creative process, from word processors that include spell and grammer checking to full on auto format for screen play software that can turn out a manuscript from some scanned in notes on paper. but no one is arguing these tools diminish the authors rights to IP. the same applies to AI, it's just another a tool. a HUMAN must still input a prompt and feed the AI data in order for it to produce a result... so why are we suddenly arguing that what spits out the other end of this tool no longer belongs to the HUMAN that fed it the initial conditions? what this judge is doing is tantamount to throwing their hands in the air and declaring they are too stupid to figure out who owns what in such a complicated scenario.