I work as an author. I believe this is total bullshit, from beginning to end - the ruling, the settlement, and the suit itself.
In the UK, we have a thing called the Public Lending Right [1]. This pays authors a fixed sum each time their book is taken out of a library, up to a capped amount.
The cap isn't very high - about $7k - so it is both an OK bit of income for authors who might be making very little money elsewhere, and also doesn't end up all going to authors who are already bestsellers. It's a decent legal system for helping libraries hold niche titles as well as the popular ones. This is, after all, the purpose of a library.
To establish my bias here: My debut novel came out after the period this specific suit concerns. I also uploaded it to LibGen myself.
I strongly believe that books should be available to read, free of charge, to all people. I benefited enormously from libraries and piracy growing up. I think they serve an important educational purpose that does not end when a person leaves school, and I do not think wealth or disposable income is a fair way to decide the breadth of a person's education.
I also have no problem with people making new "language things" using my work. I love sample-based music (like dance music, hip hop, etc) and it'd be hypocritical for me to take issue with anyone doing analogous things using books. Maximising sales is not the end-goal of making art, for me personally. Other artists feel otherwise. They consider training on pirated books stealing. That's OK - it's not for me to tell them what to believe.
The problem for me is that these corporations - undoubtedly still pretraining on pirated material - are, essentially, leeching. By not releasing the model as open-weight, freely available, they are not acting in the same spirit of the system they took advantage of. It's the Spotify model: pirate first, pay a nominal amount that does not meaningfully harm profit later. Now the dust has settled there, we can see the harm it has done to music culture.
A single settlement which does not establish precedent does not solve anything. A tokenistic $3k allows anti-AI authors to wave a cheque in the air and declare a victory. It pays the rent for a month or two. It does nothing for the months after that, when the corporation is still profiting. It does nothing to establish precedent for future artists, who also have to pay rent.
It would be (non-trivial, but) relatively simple to integrate - for example - download figures from Anna's Archive into the PLR. I'd happily dilute my PLR payment appropriately, because I think libraries are important.
You can't stop people pirating digitally replicable things. Digital ownership is not a concept that has held, or will hold.
There are only 23,000 authors in the UK who claim the cash from the PLR. To pay all those authors the national living wage in the UK (£26k) from the PLR, you would need to raise £546 million. That is around 1/34 of Anthropic's reported annual revenue.
I'm of course not arguing Anthropic should be solely responsible. But it's very frustrating that all the pieces of the puzzle for actually paying artists in a sustainable and ongoing way now exist, and one of the major obstacles to this - and the idea of a genuinely free, legal, international library, which creates more authors, writing better books, full-time - are legacy rights holders who remain attached to a completely dysfunctional and outdated concept of ownership.
So - unless part of a sustained and reasonable campaign, which understands the futility of (and damage to the medium and its creators caused by) treating digital ownership in the same way as physical ownership - this suit is close to pointless, and arguably actively harmful in the long term.
[1] https://www.bl.uk/services/plr