Earlier quoted context omitted.
As soon as something can be automated, people start acting irrationally upset, especially if the thing is seen as even remotely "creative". Those people are going to have a bad time moving forward.
I don't see this being raised as an automation issue. The GP comment is concerned with their work, including licensed code, being used by Microsoft to train LLM models without any kind of agreement or even compensation. There isn't clear legal precedent yet whether training models is an acceptable use of licensed work, but it has nothing to do with automation.
I doubt it. I think the GP will still be concerned about it, and would petition to change the law. So it has nothing to do with the legal precedence either, unless the GP concern genuinely comes from legalities, instead of using it as an argument. But why would the GP continue to be concerned?
The first possible reason I can think of is automation. That is, "no one cared until the models became good enough". The GP might fear for their job, or have "artist envy".
The second possible reason is a distaste for corporations, and wanting one's due for contributing to it in any way, regardless of what the law says (note: assuming that the training is legal as aforementioned). So this is more of a personal morals issue, one that I disagree with but must acknowledge. I must also point out that open weight models exist.