No. It's for giving credit where credit is due. And yes, that includes the question if the people who generated the training data in the first place have given their consent that this can be used for AI training.
It's quite concerning that the community around here is usually livid about FOSS license violations, which typically use copyright law as leverage, but somehow is perfectly OK with training models on copyrighted work and just labels that as "fair use".
What AI tools have you used recently? Have you verified if they all use models trained on copyrighted material with permission?
Ah, that's a classic. "How can you criticize Big Oil and at the same time drive a car!" and voila, the case is closed.
I am allowed to criticize things without having to live like a hermit. I make moderate use of ChatGPT, yet at the same time I think that its training does not fall under fair use, and that creators should get compensated. If OpenAI's business model does not allow for this, then it should fail, and that's fine by me. I lived without ChatGPT, and I can live without it again.