There are two overall issues here. On the one hand, I am against the use of AI to generate content and I agree with some of the responses that equate it with plagiarism--not because anyone specific was copied but because it's not the publisher's work product.

Regarding the free scraping so the programs learn, I have not reached a personal conclusion. On the one hand, the programs are doing what any writer does--learning to write by devouring previously written content. Yet, many writers have purchased the books they read. Yet, others may read them free from their public libraries. AI is not publishing someone elses work, so I do not see copyright issues. I think the objections are more emotional responses from writers than based on law.

The lawsuits might prevail and I expect conflicting decisions untul legislation specifically dealing with the issues are passed and there is aways the possibility of different laws being passed in different countries.

The only parties that will make any money from successful lawsuits will be the attorneys. These are filed as class actions because the damages to writers would be pennies per article scraped but the total award would be multipied by millions or billions of effected writers x their number of articles and the attorneys fees that the law firms will take off the top of the settlements would be huge--on the realm of 25%-33% of the total award.