I don’t necessarily fault OpenAI’s decision to initially train their models without entering into licensing agreements - they probably wouldn’t exist and the generative AI revolution may never have happened if they put the horse before the cart. I do think they should quickly course correct at this point and accept the fact that they clearly owe something to the creators of content they are consuming. If they don’t, they are setting themselves up for a bigger loss down the road and leaving the door open for a more established competitor (Google) to do it the right way.
It matters what is legal and what makes sense.
Saying what's legal is irrelevant is an odd take.
I like living in a place with a rule of law.
In the case of slavery - we changed the law.
In the case of copyright - it's older than the Atlantic Slave Trade and still alive and kicking.
It's almost as if one of them is not like the other.
Use this newfound insight to take my comment in good faith, as per HN guidelines, and recognize that I am making a generalized analogy about the gap between law and ethics, and not making a direct comparison between copyright and slavery.
Can we get back on topic?