IANAL and I don't think you are either. Be careful making simplistic inferences about a complicated system. Human "translation" is one thing, algorithmic "translation" has seen separate treatment in IP case law.[1] Whether this has relevance to LLM transformation or recall I don't know.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Systems,_Inc._v._Souther....
Do you understand what you're saying?
> Human "translation" is one thing
No it's not since "human translation" is literally all we had until about a year ago.
You should read the case again because it doesn't say what you think it says - it says generating a copyrighted work via a new system is still infringement (which is exactly what I'm arguing isn't happening in this case because what's being generated is a new language impl).
To put it very simply: if I use a machine (biological or electrical) to translate my favorite song into another language that's not infringement.