> No that is not what people are upset about. They are upset that their life's work is being used without even asking permission, for someone else to get insanely rich. That's what they're upset about.

This is kind of petulant then, respectfully. They got paid to produce that work, and they sold their services for that paycheck and the knowledge that they were putting their work into the world. The fruits of their labor were already being used to make Disney, etc. massively wealthy.

But this is even another step of indirection from that totally fine and reasonable situation: people (or machines) are learning from the work and producing their own. They might as well be angry at interns who learned their style to get junior jobs at Disney and who are now up and coming, replacing them.

Your job will only be replaced if you're unwilling to adapt. It's like saying that C made assembly programmers obsolete. There's a lot fewer people programming in assembly, but the correct view is that there's a lot more programmers now than there were in the days that you had to know assembly.

"Under the cover of darkness and without permission" implies quite a bit, but you're coming at it from the wrong angle, which this court ruling affirms. Try thinking of it as a new tool that will act as a force multiplier for your work.

AI is just leveraging value in the data that wasn't used before. In the same way we can automate jobs by watching how the human workers do the job, we can automate writing text or producing a picture. As we drive to work, we do so so we can get to work, but cameras on other vehicles watch us drive, and take all the judgement and learning we put into driving to try and create automated drivers. Should all drivers be compensated when their driving style is used to train an autonomous vehicle? It's the same scenario you mention: the work of humans is used to automate away that same work (this is pretty much how we automated everything, AI is just more explicit about it). It seems to me that these lawsuits are really about trying to stop the automation of certain creative jobs. And perhaps this is where we disagree, since stopping automation of jobs doesn't seem like a nobel end to me. Indeed, if we'd had this attitude about automating other jobs (like farming and manufacture of goods), creative jobs wouldn't exist, since everyone would be spending all their time producing food and tools.

I'm not sure what your comment about "Logitech CoPilot" is. GitHub CoPilot exists, was trained on code from the past 20 years, and by and large developers enjoy the additional automation, and are looking for ways to leverage this automation to be more productive. I would think artists and writers would adopt a similar approach. Experience tells me that fighting automation is a waste of time. Best to stay ahead of it.