That's an easy case, but a more interesting question to me is if there wasn't any direct source code access (similar to an open source example I can't remember the name of atm). If you give an LLM requirements matching the copyrighted products capabilities, and it doesn't have Internet access, and it spits out different code that accomplishes the same stuff papermarks product does, do you believe courts would allow that, and copyrighted could be laundered legally?

Are you familiar with what "neutral" means? If you have objections to them it's worth your time to have them be correct.

Currently my understanding is that this paper is claiming that "concepts" are a fundamental building block of experience (which relates to consciousness), and can only be built by a mapmaker which is something that directly converts continuous physical phenomena into discrete tokens. But I couldn't get further into how that related to consciousness.

EDIT: the paper seems to be assuming that something simulating a mapmaker, or the process of doing it, can by nature not be a mapmaker since performing alphabetization is inherently something that must be "instantiated". How do they confirm if something is doing simulation vs if it's actually instantiating it? How can you tell the difference? They say how, much like simulating photosynthesis will not produce glucose, simulating mapmaking won't produce concepts. But you can't measure concepts, they're intangible, so you can't differentiate simulating mapmaking vs a real mapmaker.

Is there any citation for this "legal consensus"? I was not aware there was any evidence backed stances on this topic as of yet