Assuming you believe technological advancements are a good thing, there's a balance to be struck between depriving authors of revenue they wouldn't have had in

Assuming you believe technological advancements are a good thing, there's a balance to be struck between depriving authors of revenue they wouldn't have had in the first place (when you write a book in 2010, do you actually do so with the intent that you'd get paid by companies developing an AI with that data?), and stifling technological progress because there's new money to be made and we haven't figured how to divide the pie. (Yes, I believe they should be paid, but I don't think authors should morally be allowed to hold their works for ransom in the 'a million dollars per book, take it or leave it' sense. There should be some more reasonable thing here.) We're all members of society, it's not like you want to live in an authoritarian environment where only Big Brother has the rights to make that decision. Mind you, according to your logic, even the authors of the books themselves would not have the right to make a general decision, only that of their own works. But they wouldn't have any insight at all to how allowing the data be trained on models will advance our understanding of AI tech.