From my read of the bill right now, it is not addressing AI and copyright.
I think there are important trade-offs to recognize in thinking through this. On the one hand, it's very important that artists and other people who create work get compensated for it. It is also important that we recognize that there has to be some aspect of their use.... When we, ourselves, read a document and then write something two or three years later, that document might somehow be in the back of our mind as we're drafting it up. We might cite that original person, or we may not, but we don't owe that person funds for copyright.
The first response is that, from my understanding, this bill does not address that. There are reasons to think that clarity will be good. Wherever we land, with a lack of clarity, it is going to be difficult for businesses to build AI systems, and it's going to be difficult for copyright owners to get compensated for their work. Clarity is good. As I understand it, it's not in this bill.
Second, I think it's important to recognize that some of the ways in which copyrighted work is input as data into the AI systems are very clearly related to the value of the copyright. If you ask it to write a song in the style of The Tragically Hip, it will. That's the style of The Tragically Hip, and that seems related to The Tragically Hip copyright. In contrast, if you ask it to create something that rhymes and somehow, in the dataset, there is some copyrighted work that rhymes, thinking through how every single copyright owner who's written something that rhymes should be compensated will be quite a nightmare.