So our options are

  1. She doesn't know and appears incompetent.
  2. She does know and is lying (as you see, this is the main belief).
  3. She does know in part and that part could include an honest use of this claim. (She doesn't know all, but what she does know is legal)
  4. She does know in part and knows that some was illegally obtained

Truth be told, unless it is in writing somewhere that she knows of illegal data being used, she could post hoc claim 3. But if she does know illegal, then option 1 still gets her in trouble for the same reasons 3 would. The only difference is she appears incompetent by saying I don't know. Remember, post hoc she can say "At the time I was not aware of any illegally obtained works being used to train SORA". Claiming she doesn't know now would be WORSE if that is the situation and it came to light because it is a more explicit form of deciept.

Edit: Mind you, she basically took 1 and 3. She did say it used publicly available and licensed data.

Well saying that isn't saying we didn't use non public data so it's not exactly a lie