These training dataset arguments, that act like “fair use” isn’t a real thing that’s written into copyright law, are getting old and intellectually disingenuous

These training dataset arguments, that act like “fair use” isn’t a real thing that’s written into copyright law, are getting old and intellectually disingenuous. This statement is false in so many circumstances: ‘The “public” in “public web” means free to access; it does not mean it's free to use.’ What is access without use even? Because there are plenty of ways I can use that public content without the copyright holder having any say. It could be satire, quoting sizable sections of text, making a parody, teaching, news, etc. Maybe you don’t think AI training should count as fair use, but there are countless ways already to create transformative/derivative works of from others copyrighted works without their consent. This isn’t anywhere close to the black and white problem so many make it out to be.