Absent a special legal carve-out, you need to get judges to do the Fair Use Four Factors test, and decide on how AI should be treated. To my very much engineer and not legal eye, AI does great on point 3, but loses on points 1, 2, and 4, so it is something that will need to be decided by the judges, how to balance those four factors defined in the law.
It's not clear to me it loses at all on point 4. It seems to me AI is quite far from producing human quality literature or even human quality news content for example so it's hard to see a direct line from OpenAI using book/news content to author's books/articles being worth less. Maybe you can argue AI summaries in search results reduces clicks to the New York Times or something like that but that would be more specific to search.
Point two is also a bit ambiguous because many of the works involved are weaker forms of copyright. Books for example don't generally have copyrighted violated if you write a summary or analysis of that book so if the AI model isn't reproducing content verbatim or only does so for limited purposes (like providing direct quotes) it is probably non-infringing from an output perspective.
Point one by itself isn't a bright line test as well as plenty of commercial uses have been found to be non-infringing.
Absent a special legal carve-out, you need to get judges to do the Fair Use Four Factors test, and decide on how AI should be treated. To my very much engineer and not legal eye, AI does great on point 3, but loses on points 1, 2, and 4, so it is something that will need to be decided by the judges, how to balance those four factors defined in the law.