Completely crazy take. Your health records are not currently protected by copyright law. If someone magically snapped their fingers and eliminated copyright law, the protections on your health data, scant though they may be, would more or less be the same (IANAL)
So to be clear -- you're well aware that in the case of your private data that you have an interest in preventing it being used to train AI.
Great. So d'you think you could outline a reason why you wouldnt have an interest in your creative works not being used also?
Either the training data is, as big-ad-tech says, essentially equivalent to generic human experiences -- ie., weakly repoducible; OR it is extremely reporducible, and equivalent more to standard contemporary data compression.
If you're kool-aid'ing the former on copyright, why not the latter on privacy?>
Because my private data isn't protected by copyright, it's protected by things like HIPAA which doesn't matter one iota about human experiences and applies equally to humans and machines. It's about data sovereignty and who may access my data and for what purpose. A human is not allowed to share, retain, or reproduce my medical data.
So arguments like "I can get the AI to output my chart verbatim" start carrying weight because it's granted access to data that the humans that created the AI are not permitted to share in any form whatsoever where as copyright concerns what I may do with the data after it's produced. Copyright is full of exceptions for things that don't count as a reproduction or performance of the work and this is just one more, it doesn't change the nature of copyright.
