I want to gently reframe the debate, for while I agree with the hypocrisy it rather misses a very key point.
Intellectual law, as bedrock principle, explicitly doesn’t recognize nonhuman creators. So at the heart of the issue isn’t changing copyright laws or the death of IP, but what to do with non-human creativity? This is an interesting issue now, but most of the debates and options being debated thus far won’t survive an AGI let alone a world full of advanced AGIs.
But it’s a critical distinction between “so now it doesn’t matter when it was theft before,” and “what do we do with non-human intelligence when our entire system of creativity protection is build around humans and non-humans now exist?”
It’s a paradigm shift that gets somewhat denied by the hypocrisy argument. Most people look at AI as “technology” we have developed, but if any science fiction writers are right it’s actually a bona fide digital intelligence that’s getting developed here — essentially the possible digital twin of human intelligence — and that’s a whole different set of considerations.