1. I’m disinclined to believe that purely because of the inconvenience of doing so. Much easier to scrape the entire internet.

2. How so? If you sell your stuff and someone makes it public, it’s still your choice to sell it.

3. That’s only true as far as recreating the content is concerned. Reading and viewing is by definition fair use for publicly visible information.

4. Define fair compensation. I feel like the creatives are just upset that their work is “easy” to replicate with these models. And that isn’t even true, they never appear as unique or interesting as truly new work.

1. If scraping the entire internet is easier, but doesn’t give me as good of results as including private or licensed data, I will train my LLM on private data or lose the race. It is not about easy. Just look at some of the lawsuits against OpenAI: https://originality.ai/blog/openai-chatgpt-lawsuit-list

2. Think about this - what you are saying is that you can’t sell anything without also making it public. These are not the same thing. I sell something to get value from my labor. I make something public to get eyes on it. The whole issue is that people who want to privately sell things have their work being undercut by LLMs

3. LLMs are recreating the content

4. Take Miyazaki. He spends his whole life developing a unique art style and skill. Years. He makes his living and provides a living for others with it. The value of that _used to be_ the movies he was paid to make and the revenue they generated. Now LLMs can create his work for free, and he doesn’t see a dime whenever someone converts their profile picture into his style. This is the ethical problem - he is not compensated, let alone the ethics of upending artists years of work for the sake of it

These LLMs primarily distribute intellectual and creative wealth from media conglomerates to anyone on earth with $20. (Without fair compensation, agreed)