Let's say I'm an academic; if my research, note-taking, and paper writing skills lead to fair-use, cited quotations where applicable, general knowledge not identified, and the creative aspects and unique conclusions creating the intriguing part of my work, that's copacetic. If I spit out (from memory, mind you) verbatim quotes and light rewordings of NY Times articles, that's not; "I don't remember where I got that material" doesn't cut it. My reading the NY Times every day for years because I judge it to be more literate and accurate than other sources, undoubtedly it has informed my thinking and style, but I don't need to acknowledge that.

If I use ChatGPT as a research tool, as long as it lives within the same parameters that I have to live within, I don't see a problem with its education/learning.

I understand that the NYTimes would like a slice of anything that comes out of the GPT but I'm talking about what seems reasonable. People who share their copyrighted material do not own all of the thinking that comes out of it; they own that expression of it, that is all.

Will AI destroy the economics of "writing" the way the web has killed newspapers? perhaps, perhaps we'll all benefit from and need a new model, but killing the new to keep the old on life support is not the way.