If Musk's "anti-woke" AI was just trained on logs from what he calls "woke AI", that would, actually, be particularly newsworthy.
(The explanation they have put forward is that this is not the case, but they just failed to realize that blindly ingesting web content would bring in a lot of ChatGPT-derived content.)
OpenAI terms of service explicitly say it cannot be used to create a competing product.
Is it hard to filter ChatGPT output from random chats shared in articles? Yes, it is. That's their problem though.
Probably.
> Isn't training on content without permission kind of their whole business model?
Right, their business model rests on the argument that copyright law doesn't require permission from copyright holders. They aren't relying on copyright law, but contract law (which only binds direct users, but applies to material not covered by copyright and applies in circumstances where even if material was covered by copyright use would be allowed as, e.g, fair use.)
Is it an attempt to pull up the ladder? Obviously. But both the safety mission of the charity and the commercial competitive interests of the for profit provide rationales for this, so there is no reason to think that just because it hobbles others in trying to catch up that it would be difficult for them to do it with a straight face.
There is a meaningful distinction between using ChatGPT directly, putting in the prompts and taking the results, and just finding random output that other people have published in the internet and using that.
apply only to people who agree to OpenAI's terms of service (its users)