You need better arguments than "you don't like to use it yourself and prefer writing yourself" or some metaphysical voodoo-like theory (analogous to tribes that refuse to be captured on a photo) whereby feeding your words to a training algorithm somehow corrupts your pure Platonic words or whatnot. Your utterances are not yours to grab on to. Copyright is about expression and derivatives. You could never copyright your style, or else any music band that copies the general style of another band could have been sued and then the development of music would also have gone quite differently. No, ideas, styles, claims, knowledge are by default part of the commons. The narrow carveouts are for incentivizing more creative work and are targeted and specific, time limited. You can't generally, by default, restrict what others can do with ideas that you've put out. Patents are a narrow exception. And copyright for non-transformative derivative works or copies. And trademarks to protect consumers from mis-identifying the creator of something.

-----

> clearly upset about the economic impact this will have on him

So readers will read AI generated books because they are better than his writing? People can't invest ten bucks or however much into reading a good book? How about piracy? It exists. I bet I could download all his books in less than 5 minutes. If someone insists on not paying for that book, they can easily get it.

> he has written in support of very long copyright durations that can be inherited

This whole copyright and intellectual "property" idea is extremely new in human history. More people should know this fact. This has not been how people thought about culture before the ~1800s, or, well before the printing press. Copyright is a narrow exception to the general rule that people are free to listen to others and use the ideas and spread the ideas. There are exceptions like trade secrets and various dangerous information about nuclear topics and whatnot, but generally preventing others from talking about what they heard is tyrannical. If anything, copyright should be reduced to something like the creation of the work + 20 years. Not lifetime +X. That's plenty enough to be the sole distributor and to block others from building on top of it. After that it's time to let people use culture as it's always been. Changing, mixing, remixing, retelling, combining, etc.

The whole thing is often wrongly framed, with verbs like "consume", like "consuming content", which is just Orwellian language to describe having your eyes or ears open and remembering what you saw and heard. It doesn't consume a pdf to look at the words and read them. It doesn't consume a film to look at it being projected on a canvas. It doesn't consume a painting to step close and look.