If we feed the entirety of a library to an AI and have it generate new books, is it an exploitation of people's work?
If we read a book and use its instructions to build a bicycle, is it an exploitation of people's work?
No, no it's not.
If we read a book and use its instructions to build a bicycle, is it an exploitation of people's work?
No, no it's not.
When you read a book and copy this book partially or entirely to create a new book or create a derivative work using this book without citation it's called plagiarism and copyright infringement. It is not only exploitation, it is against the law.
If you feed an entire library to an AI to generate new books without source citation and copyright agreements it is not only exploitation, it is against the law. We can call this automated plagiarism and copyright infringement, and automated or not, it is against the law. Except if you use public domain books. It wouldn't be illegal but highly unethical considering there are powerful companies with big pockets bending public domain's laws to avoid their assets to be public available (I'm looking at you Disney), but that is another story.
Of course we generate the world around us and its rules but I get angry every time we compare people to machines and say that it's the same thing. No it's not. We are constrained by time and space. I can't add more brain or more eyes to my body so I read more books can I? Microsoft can have a small city of servers somewhere and that could replace lots of people's jobs.