I suspect many people feel in a similar way too (for example, artists whose art is used to train image generators without compensation).
Note that in regards to A) I'm pretty sure the AI firms ARE violating copyright today, they have done this knowingly, and they should get a hard slap for that. But they are not violating any particular copyleft licensing provisions to my knowledge
Depends on the jurisdiction. Do note that many countries already passed laws indicating that training is NOT copyright infringement. The EU[1], for example. In which case, no license would matter.
https://www.reedsmith.com/en/perspectives/ai-in-entertainmen...
[1] Yes, in the EU, you can opt-out (but only for commercial purposes). In other countries such as Singapore however, there are no legal mechanisms for opting out.
Just to be a counter-voice, I don't. My code is AGPL too, but since the number of copy"righted" things outnumber the number of AGPL things, I'd rather anybody have the ability to train their own AI on all material. Conversely, if it was considered a derivative, only large corporations like Adobe or Microsoft would be able to train on it (e.g. they can just give themselves a license to do so via the ToS).
In other words, it's probably a bad idea to strengthen copyright law for the purpose of enforcing copyleft, due to possibilities of it backfiring on us.
a rack of equipment does not need to sleep, eat, take care of themselves, earn a living and so on while churning through millions of words a minute. An actual thinking and learning person has to choose what to spend their limited time and money and attention on, while reading at a pace of dozens of words a minute. Those are not the same things at all.