It is no wonder why OpenAI had to pay Shutterstock for training on their data and Getty suing Stability AI for training on their watermarked images and using it commercially without permission and actors / actresses filing lawsuits against commercial voice cloners which costs them close to nothing, as those companies either take down the cloned voice offering or shutdown.
These weak arguments from these AI folks sound like excuses justifying a newly found grift.
AI outputs should be regulated, of course. Obviously impersonation and copyright law already applies to AI systems. But a discussion on training inputs is entirely novel to man and our laws, and it's a very nuanced and important topic. And as AI advances, it becomes increasingly difficult because of the diminishing distinction between "organic" learning and "artificial" learning. As well as when stopping AI from — as an example — learning from research papers means we miss out on life-saving medication. Where do property rights conflict with human rights?
They're important conversations to have, but you've destroyed the opportunity to have them from the starting gun.
To be clear, I would argue the regulations in question would fall under the human/legal entity responsible for the creation or dissemination. Having censored output on the AI itself seems significantly less productive.