Academic publishing is predominantly controlled by a small
  oligopoly of five for-profit corporations that collectively
  publish roughly 50% of all scientific articles: Elsevier
  (owned by RELX Group), Springer Nature, Wiley (John
  Wiley & Sons), Taylor & Francis (owned by Informa PLC),
  and SAGE Publications.

Going forward, colleges can pay for ChatGPT and things like it, and presumably will. The AI companies will be happy to sell to them. There's really no problems here except for self-created ones (for example, if some researchers don't want to use AI). Of course, they're free to do that, just like they're free to not use computers. But then don't complain that doing stuff takes too long.

Maybe AIs are conscious, maybe not. But this guy has no idea.

The logical outcome of this fallacy is believing that AI will collapse if it has to train on data it generated. (It won't: a lot of famous AIs were trained this way, including AlphaGo many years ago.)

Company B: Can you tell us which part we stole?

Company A: You can safely assume that nearly every PR had human input, unless you have a way to prove otherwise.

In any case we can prove that you illegally downloaded the source code from our servers, a felony under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986.

Wikipedia, and LLMs, can refuse to cite sources and still not infringe copyright. Citation simply isn't relevant to copyright. Not citing a work that you read previously is not a copyright infringement. Wikipedia or OpenAI being non-profit, or for-profit businesses, has nothing to do with copyright. Consent has nothing to do with copyright. Copyrighting something doesn't mean that you can require everyone who reads it to get your consent. You can require everyone who distributes it to get your consent, but once it's been distributed to someone, they can read it freely.

Hope this helps!

Really the only difference between the Wikipedia author and the LLM is that the Wikipedia author will more frequently be asked to provide citations. But the LLM can also provide citations if asked. In neither case are the authors of what is being summarized compensated or asked for permission. In neither case is it theft.

Indeed, the need to get consent from the author before reading a published work Isn't A Thing in general, outside some very specific contractural scenarios.