If you sample someone else’s music and turn around and try to sell it, without first asking permission from the original artist, that’s copyright infringement.

I think you completely and thoroughly do not understand what I'm saying or why I'm saying it. No where did I suggest that I do not understand modern copyright. I'm saying I'm questioning my belief in this extreme interpretation of copyright which is represented by exactly what you just parroted. That this interpretation is both functionally and materially unworkable, but also antithetical to a reasonable understanding of how ideas and communication work.

A sample is a fundamental part of a song’s output, not just its input. If LLMs are changing the input’s work to a high enough degree is it not protected as a transformative work?