But we do? Open sourcing something with caveats is common. This code is public BUT not for commercial use. This code is public BUT you must display attribution etc.
Sure, blogposts are unlicensed (that I know) but the idea of something publicly available being held to restrictions is nothing new.
But telling me it is illegal to share what I learnt because the original source is copyrighted... doesn't sit right with me.
What protects particular solutions is patents. For example if someone were to obtain a patent for computing GCD of large integers the usual fast way, well then everyone else would have to use a different solution.
This analogy to someone reading a book, perhaps peppered with lots of legalese to the point of being hardly recognizable, will definitely be used in courts at some point. And I can't see how it wouldn't stand as a valid argument.
If you pick up a book and learn a fact, then yeah, you’re allowed to share that fact.
It’s weird that this topic keeps devolving into a form of “so what, it’s illegal for me to learn things?” Because: no, it’s not. And: You and a piece of software are treated differently under the law. You have a different set of rights than ChatGPT.
Gods, no. Where did you get that from?
Those might not be a problem regarding this specific case, but the case can easily be made that it ought to be.
I don't understand your point. Do you think it makes any difference whether I use my laptop, or a pen, or ChatGPT to violate copyright?
On the other hand, it's completely feasible to make a license that stops someone from training their model with some piece of info, is it not?