I honestly think you're more certain because you want the courts to rule in a certain manner.
I'm more certain because I'm thinking about this separately from my opinions as to how the courts will rule. Yes, I will just so happen to agree with that ruling because I happen to agree with the logic and knowledge contained in our legal process. I agree that the existing legal doctrines already capture the spirit of what we are asking them to judge. I agree that the statutory law, case law and doctrine that informs their judgement will successfully balance both the limited rights of copyright holders and the natural rights of a public to unburdened access to the arts, knowledge and information. I agree with their process of balancing the potential impact on existing commercial practice with the potential impact on new forms of commercially significant non-infringing practices.
Some things in copyright might just seem unfair, like the case of Baker v Selden:
In 1859, Charles Selden obtained copyright in a book he wrote called Selden's Condensed Ledger, or Book-keeping Simplified. In it the book described an improved system of book-keeping. The books contained about twenty pages of primarily book-keeping forms and only about 650 words. In addition, the books contained examples and an introduction. In the following years Selden made several other books, improving on the initial system. In total, Selden wrote six books, though, evidence suggests that they were really six editions of the same book.
Selden, however, was unsuccessful in selling his books. He originally believed he could sell his system to several counties and the United States Department of the Treasury. Those sales never happened. Selden was forced to assign his interest—an interest that apparently was returned to his wife after his death in 1871.
In 1867, W.C.M. Baker produced a book describing a very similar system. Unlike Selden, Baker was more successful at selling his book–selling it to some 40 counties within five years.
Selden's widow, Elizabeth Selden, hired an attorney, Samuel S. Fisher, a former Commissioner of Patents. In 1872, Fisher filed suit against Baker for copyright infringement.
The poor old widow lost. Boohoo. But this was a just ruling!
I'm not sure that the people who think that ChatGPT is guilty of copyright infringement are thinking about the issue in a balanced manner. Luckily our courts probably will!
One strategy that the defense could use to lower their risk profile is to allow open access to their models and allow an entire ecosystem of commercially significant non-infringing uses to blossom because they are aware of how the courts will be influenced based on existing statutory and legal doctrine...