the analogy in the anti-fair-use argument is that if I am the WSJ, and you are a reader and investor who reads my newspaper, and then you go on to make a billion dollars in profitable trades, somehow I as the publisher am entitled to some equity or compensation for your use of my journalism.
That argument is equally absurd as one where you write a program that does the same thing. Model training is not only fair use, but publishers should be grateful someone has done something of value for humanity with their collected drivelings.
This is the checkmate. The moment anything is published, it is fair game, it is part of the human consciousness and available for incorporation in anything that it sits as a component. Otherwise, what is the fucking point of publishing, mere revenue? Are we all not collectively competing and contributing? Furthermore, is not anything copied from anything published arguably not satire? Protected speech satire?
That argument is equally absurd as one where you write a program that does the same thing. Model training is not only fair use, but publishers should be grateful someone has done something of value for humanity with their collected drivelings.