[haswell]

While this may be true, the reverse is also true, and even if it’s legal, there are other ways to frame this that are worth considering, e.g. It could technically be legal, but not in accordance with the spirit of the law. Updates to laws are required. The fact that the model is legal is an additional problem on top of the gap in the law.

I think my main point here is that “legal” does not imply moral or acceptable to society, and our understanding of the technical legal status is not a prerequisite for exploring those factors, which may be the thing that changes the legal status in response to the major shift in landscape.

[Spivak]

Right but if you have a plausible case you weren't breaking the law and it was a legal unknown the most that will happen is "we've decided this is officially illegal, stop doing it."

You risk nothing by assuming things are legal until explicitly illegal.

[haswell]

If you limit the framing of the conversation to that of an amoral corporate entity, sure. But I don’t think there was ever a question that companies can legally do things that are potentially (or unequivocally) distasteful if not outright unethical/immoral.

More interesting is the broader conversation which involves society’s response to a major shift in the information economy, new questions about what role these tools should play, and how laws should evolve accordingly.

The factors surrounding the emergence/unfolding of AI tooling can’t be stripped down to just the corporate interests involved.