That is why I pointed out both the scholarly exemption as well as the collage exception.

There are arguments to be made for fair use--I'm just not sure the current crop of GPT falls under any of them.

But the point is that fair use is almost completely principles-based rather than rules-based. Besides the four factors in the statute and some judicial precedent it's pretty much at the discretion of the court.

So? Copyright is a social construct. Fair use is a social construct.

Social constructs are not computer programs. Social constructs concern messy, unpredictable computing units called humans.

Precedent and continuity are something that US courts normally try to value. Yes, the rules can be fuzzy, but the courts generally tried to balance the needs of the competing parties. Unfortunately, there will never be a purely "rules based" decision tree on this kind of "fuzzy" thing.

Of course, recent Republican court appointments have torn up the idea of precedent and minimizing disruption in preference to partisan principles, so your concerns aren't unwarranted.