If I want to use your personal data to train my LLM, I need to get permission from you. I "pay" for this by either offering giving you a free service (Google, Facebook); or offering you better service in return (Apple, Amazon). For all copyrighted data, I expect to pay for the data.
I can train my AI on open source code that is on GitHub, but if I want to train it on Oracle or SAP software, I need to get their permission, pay them for it, and promise that what I have trained the AI to do cannot be used to re-create the software. Their source code and documentation is on the other side of a pay wall. They have a reasonable expectation that their paying customers do not hack the paywall, and suck in all the documentation and code to train their AI. If they choose to make part of their software available for free to entice people to sign up, the expectation remains that copyright will be respected.
So, when we are talking about news and opinion pieces, why should the rules change?
The reason the AI engines are as cheap as they are is that they were trained on copyrighted data without permission, and are able to create new content.
I love the power and productivity lift that AI tools are giving me, but this fundamental truth does continue to trouble a lot of people.