I feel my interpretation differs at:

> "...I don't see any ethical obligation to use "unbiased" datasets for pure research or tinkering with models..."

I don't think his comment was addressing the larger ethical discussion at all. I didn't interpret it as a discussion of ethical responsibilities, rather a strictly technical, matter-of-fact statement about the nature of ML training.

Please don't interpret my comment as an attack on yours, it was more pointing out I interpreted his statement differently.