Those claiming AI training on copyrighted works is "theft" misunderstand key aspects of copyright law and AI technology. Copyright protects specific expressions of ideas, not the ideas themselves. When AI systems ingest copyrighted works, they're extracting general patterns and concepts - the "Bob Dylan-ness" or "Hemingway-ness" - not copying specific text or images.
This process is akin to how humans learn by reading widely and absorbing styles and techniques, rather than memorizing and reproducing exact passages. The AI discards the original text, keeping only abstract representations in "vector space". When generating new content, the AI isn't recreating copyrighted works, but producing new expressions inspired by the concepts it's learned.
This is fundamentally different from copying a book or song. It's more like the long-standing artistic tradition of being influenced by others' work. The law has always recognized that ideas themselves can't be owned - only particular expressions of them.
Moreover, there's precedent for this kind of use being considered "transformative" and thus fair use. The Google Books project, which scanned millions of books to create a searchable index, was ruled legal despite protests from authors and publishers. AI training is arguably even more transformative.
While it's understandable that creators feel uneasy about this new technology, labeling it "theft" is both legally and technically inaccurate. We may need new ways to support and compensate creators in the AI age, but that doesn't make the current use of copyrighted works for AI training illegal or unethical.
For those interested, this argument is nicely laid out by Damien Riehl in FLOSS Weekly episode 744. https://twit.tv/shows/floss-weekly/episodes/744
I think what you're forgetting is that intelligence, in general, is an emergent property of recording information and learning what actions to take based on them. The current work on AI is essentially trying to take this evolutionary behavior, make it less random, and compress the cycles of iteration down so that intelligence emerges quickly. This whole argument "It's not smart like I'm smart" with only surface level observation about it's current state and no critical observation about how intelligence came to be, just sounds really insecure.
I get it. Humans will likely not be the smartest thing in the arena soon. But stating matter-of-factly that AI is inherently different is born from an emotional viewpoint. I understand there ARE differences, but no more so then how there are differences between a human and a dog. Which if you're honestly looking at the situation is impressively close to human intelligence in such a short time.