Even if this is true, the sum of a human's total experiences is far more vast than what LLMs are trained on and is mostly non-copyrighted material. Your eyes are open ~16 hours a day, constantly exposing your brain to various non-copyrighted stuff like trees, rocks, animals, the insides of your house, the crap on your desk, other people's faces, traffic, etc.

"Experiences" and "content" are not equivalent. To take a very simple example: Go outside. Look at some geraniums. There are probably other examples, but red geraniums are pretty common and cheap in temperate climates. If you've been looking at screens for a long time, geranium petals look impossibly red. Red roses also work. Why is that? Because they're a real physical object whose colour properties cannot be accurately reproduced in an image using standard RGB colour. Even after billions of dollars of R&D and decades of research, the best sensors and screens in the world cannot still accurately reproduce the simple act of looking at a flower. And yet here you are claiming that these models that've been fed nothing but digitised facsimiles that we know can't even accurately represent common situations are equivalent to the experiences of living beings?

Here's a common experience most people will have had: Think about what it feels like to slip and fall on a wet road and skin your palms on some gritty tarmac. Think about how many senses that involves, and how it's a basic experience most people have had. And now consider how we aren't even remotely close to the process of beginning to digitise such a basic experience.