Sample sentences like those in the OED are pretty much the textbook example of fair use. They are obviously transformative (the whole "dictionary" part), copy

Sample sentences like those in the OED are pretty much the textbook example of fair use. They are obviously transformative (the whole "dictionary" part), copy factual information (use of a word, not what the sentence itself is saying), are not substantial (one sentence out of many thousands), and do not impact the original work's value (nobody would buy a dictionary instead of a novel because it contains a sample phrase from that novel). The OED cites its sources, which also strengthens its case. Compare that to AI, which is more than happy to write a short story to the prompt "Write a story about Bucky and Captain America falling in love, and living happily ever after in a mountain cabin." (Transformative? Maybe. Factual? No. Substantial? Yes. Impacts value? Yes.) Works like the AI's output have been dealt with in lawsuits like Salinger v. Colting, and it simply is not allowed. The big question right now is: what about the AI model itself?