Did... you read any of these?

Fair use is a defence against copyright infringement. Ie you actively say that you *have* committed copyright infringement, but you're allowed to do it under fair use doctrine to train the model. That says nothing about the purposes the model is used for

There's also these parts:

> its use of pirated books to create such library does not constitute fair use.

Which indicates that there are tight bounds depending on the ethics of how the content was obtained

Similarly with the second one

>Meta moved to dismiss plaintiffs’ cause of action for direct copyright infringement only to the extent that it was premised on a theory that the software comprising LLaMA is itself an infringing derivative work.

We're talking specifically about the output of the models being infringing, not whether or not the models themselves are infringing. If you read onwards

>Plaintiffs’ claim for vicarious copyright infringement failed because the complaint did not allege that any output generated by LLaMA contained protectable expression that recast, transformed or adapted the books. Without “an infringing output, there can be no vicarious infringement.”

Which strongly indicates the precise opposite of what you're saying, if you actually like, read the rulings