It's perfectly reasonable to say it's okay for humans to do something but not okay for a computer program to do the same thing. We don't have to equate AI to humans, that's a choice and usually a bad one.
It would not be reasonable to allow machines to do that at unlimited scale without restrictions.
(Hopefully the fossil fuels industry won't draw inspiration from the legal arguments made by AI companies...)
Is there any line past which it becomes unreasonable?
> It would not be reasonable to allow machines to do that at unlimited scale without restrictions.
If the machines were a replacement for a damaged respiratory system in a human would it reasonable?
What about if the machine were being used by a human to do something else that was important?
Where is the line where it becomes reasonable?
That's exactly the question we should be asking about AI and fair use.
Because the alternative would be to just railroad people who don't agree, and even when it does work in one's favor the pendulum tends to swing back hard in response.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to catch a metal shuttle that chucks itself through the air on wings.
The relevant extension of your analogy is should birds be required to obey FAA rules? Or should plane factories be protected as nesting sites?
If you come at it from the view of copyright being a limited set of control over some areas but not others, then if copyright doesn't block human learning it shouldn't affect anything similar either, unless a specific rule is added to make those situations be handled differently.