Citing sources is also, traditionally, a key method of separating the work you built upon from the work you yourself derived/created/expanded. If one does not cite their sources, there is no way to establish if the presented work is their own, or copy+pasting someone else’s.

I thought it was clear: openAI devs are asked to disclose their training data. If the prompt say it's sources or not isn't present.

By the way: a gdpr exception exist for AI and research projects. The lawmakers at the time listened to us (I worked for a big data Paas that mostly worked with universities and BigCorp R&D at the time) and were generous as the baked-in exception was pretty much word for word what was asked, because it was in good faith.

Actors like OpenAI risk poisoning the well, or spoil the good apples, or whatever image you want to use. This is not much. It isn't asked that they Gpl their code, or that they put a 'source' under each response. They don't have to change anything to their tech. They don't have to disclose their fine-tuning either. Just, make a list of the datasources you used, and publish it.

In which file format is the material in the brain stored? How is it compressed? What is the memory model? How is it computed?

We don't know much about how the brain computes actually, so making a claim that the brain maps 1-1 with my mechanical calculator is a stretch.