For the majority of interesting output people have paid for art, music, software, journalism. But you know that already and are justifying the industry that pays your bills.
Irrelevant really. Invoking this in the argument shows the basis is jealousy. They are clearly valued as such not because they collected all the data and stored in some database. Your local library is not worth 300 billion.
> For the majority of interesting output people have paid for art, music, software, journalism
Absolutely and demonstrably false. Music and art predate Copyright by hundreds if not thousands of years.
> But you know that already and are justifying the industry that pays your bills.
Huh, ad hominem much? I find it rich that the whole premise of your argument was some "art, music, software, journalist" was entitled to some payment, but suddenly it is a problem when "my industry" (somehow you assume I work in AI) is getting paid?
And as I said, art was always paid for. In the case of monarchies, at least their advisers usually had good taste, unlike rich people today.
Interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer trespasses into the copyright owner’s domain, but he does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Although it is no less unlawful or wrongful for that reason, it is not a theft.
Why whould anyone think that these companies will contribute to the good of humanity when they are even bigger and more powerful, when they seem to care so little now?
Have you seen the people who do OpenAI demos? It becomes pretty apparent upon inspection, what is driving said people.