Raw LLM Responses

In the EU region, Europe, copyright laws were updated a few years ago to take into account the threat of AI and to ensure that copyright protection can only be obtained if the author or creator of the work is provably a real human being (however, EU copyright law doesn't mention AI, but it does require that the author or creator must be a real person). And I think it's a good thing that this is the case, the author's or creator's copyright to the work arises automatically if the work exceeds the threshold of originality, it belongs to the person who originally made or created the work (even when they are employed by a company or organization) and it cannot be given away prematurely (not until 70 years have passed since the death of its author or creator), and the only reasons for losing protection is bad faith, the work is not original enough (for example, a photograph of Paavo Nurmi lighting the 1952 Olympic flame doesn't exceed the threshold of originality according to the Finnish Copyright Council) or if it turns out that the author or creator of the work is not a natural person. But currently I am more concerned about the recent proposals for next reform to remove the expiration date from copyright and the public domain so that "works could be protected from unauthorized AI use", because I don't understand why the old works whose copyright protection has expired couldn't be protected from AI use without considering abolishing the public domain and expiration date. However, I hope that the proposal to remove the public domain will remain just a roar from experts and politicians, and that some other, less extreme, way could be found to protect works that are out of copyright protection. I should also mention that I am not a lawyer, but there is a law in Finland that requires its citizens to know certain laws because they are part of common knowledge, and copyright law is one of them.