Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy

In my opinion, training models on user data without their real consent (real consent = e.g. the user must sign a contract or so, so he's definitely aware), should be considered a serious criminal offense.

Why single out user data specifically? Most of the data Anthropic and co train on was just scooped up from wherever with zero consent, not even the courtesy of a buried TOS clause, and their users were always implicitly fine with that. Forgive me for not having much sympathy when the users end up reaping what they've sown.

Publishing something is considered by most to be sufficient consent for it to be not considered private.

I realize there's a whole legal quagmire here involved with intellectual "property" and what counts as "derivative work", but that's a whole separate (and dubiously useful) part of the law.

That is definitely normally true but I feel like the scale and LLM usage turns it into a different problem.

If you can use all of the content of stack overflow to create a “derivative work” that replaces stack overflow, and causes it to lose tons of revenue, is it really a derivative work?

I’m pretty sure solution sites like chegg don’t include the actual questions for that reason. The solutions to the questions are derivative, but the questions aren’t.