[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.