I don't understand your point.

Its my stated disagreement with the following:

>I think it makes sense to say training on material you legally acquired is fair use.

First an aside, there's no law against accessing copyrighted material. OpenAI is certainly welcome to read the New York Times. I can legally buy dvds but the legality of redistributing rips is only considered should I redistribute them.

One of the considerations of "fair use" might be the possibility of benefits or drawbacks to society of those uses that fall under "fair use" exceptions. I would hold the AI's use to that standard, and thats really when we should take the entirety into consideration. This is a big topic tho. We want laws because we believe they benefit society, when loopholes appear we'd normally like them closed, obviously there are branches of the US government that are simply not "normal" right now so theres that lol

I will also admit that a narrower view of "fair use" is to equate "training" of these AIs with human use of the material, after all someone reading the new york times are certainly not infringing on anybody's copyright, in fact they're likely fufilling the new york times internally held purpose, ie., they do the writing, they hope to be read with whatever profit to them that might bring. Just like an AI reading that page by controlling a web browser right? Well this is a good rabbit hole too and you're welcome to try to present that case also, because I've been of the opinion for the last few years that LLMs are not people, and I can chat about that all day.

Its easy to post that you don't understand, so if you'd like to post that again this is fine with me, I'm often a very misunderstood individual :)