[Vvector]

If the work goes beyond fair use, it is a copyright violation. It doesn't matter if it was created by a person or an AI.

Technology that makes copyright violations easier/quicker have typically been found legal if "the technology in question had significant non-infringing uses".

[karmakaze]

This makes sense. It was allowed for the content to be read and used in certain ways (e.g. search engines or as references) without substantial reproduction. The NYT would then have to flag specific generated content as infringing a specific work which could then be judged as fair use or not on a case-by-case basis. If a particular site/company was repeatedly and/or primarily using substantial content then perhaps it could be 'delisted' as search engines do for links to pirated copies of works.