This is one of the reasons there should simply be a big tax on AI profits, assuming they come to pass: they literally require uncompensated training on the sum of human intellectual effort. There is no AI without standing on the shoulders of both giants and thousands of everyday authors.
If you're just giving the result back to humanity, OK, there's a case for it being a fair trade, though there's still the question of how to handle the disruption of long tradition of valuing & compensating labor.
If you're using it to win capitalism, 50% tax seems starting stakes. Sure, lots of expertise and resources go into the data processing to produce a model that can talk to you, but without the data, the processing doesn't matter (and without the model, we could still do this collectively).
I'm pretty sure Facebook/Meta isn't earning any profits from this. They are mostly doing it to "commoditize their complement" and probably prevent the rise of another company to the Big Tech status.
It could be structured to reward living authors, mechanical licensing has worked this way.
But even if it wasn't -- even if couldn't be -- you could use it to fund all kinds of public goods which would benefit living authors. Maybe even a basic income if it turns out to be successful enough.
It's a different pro-social bargain than direct compensation for the fruits of labor, but at least it's still a bidirectional one.
If you're just giving the result back to humanity, OK, there's a case for it being a fair trade, though there's still the question of how to handle the disruption of long tradition of valuing & compensating labor.
If you're using it to win capitalism, 50% tax seems starting stakes. Sure, lots of expertise and resources go into the data processing to produce a model that can talk to you, but without the data, the processing doesn't matter (and without the model, we could still do this collectively).