> Imagine alternative time line where tech is the same but each creative provides their own trained model that scales their own creative vision and skills, and keeps them in control of their own work.

This is a timeline that can not and will never exist if the Authors Guild and most of the other anti-AI lawsuits succeed. Because if they do succeed, the only people who will be able to provide an AI model will be companies with enough resources to license all the training data in perpetuity. The Authors Guild isn't mad because the authors can't train and use their own AIs, they're mad because the AI companies are making money and they're not getting what they perceive as their fair cut of that money.

> Imagine OpenAI, Anthropic &co having to compete by hiring [thousands] of their own talent to help training their commercial models.

If that's what the AI companies would need to do, how then does "each creative" compete? What authors or artists do you know that can afford to hire "thousands" of people to help them build bespoke AI models?

It seems to me that we should be figuring out how to make public models and datasets that can be used by anyone, not further strengthening copyright so that AI models can only be produced by companies with the resources to hire thousands of people.