When that happens it shouldn't be forgotten that people (broadly speaking) chose this. AI proponents lit intellectual property on fire out of self-interest.
Regardless of whether or not we agree with it, adherence to our idea of IP law is not something the whole world agrees upon, even before LLMs.
Sometimes they're actually true.
Repeatedly tell people climate change is a serious problem for over half a century -> hand wringing.
Make solar panels cheap -> renewables become 99.2% of net new electricity generation in the US.
You need something that looks like the second one.
GP's argument is usually used in the sense of "if I hadn't done it, someone else would, so I might as well do it and the end result will be the same, except then I'll reap the rewards".
It's a crap justification for doing something unethical. But in many cases, even the unethical ones, it's also true, and I think in this case it is too. If the US had magically shut down every AI lab on day one, and banned all AI research, that wouldn't have stopped this train. Probably would have slowed it down, but not enough to really matter.
Also that age-old rationalization has generally always been true.
I don't really see your point? Maybe you don't have one?