How is the use of CC-BY-4.0 by a LLM going to be attributed to satisfy the license conditions is my question. Every answer by the model contains the work as part of it's token weights and can regurgitate.
It's less clear that the license gives AI companies the right to train LLMs. They tend to take the view that any media can be used for training regardless of licensing because it's fair use. Many authors disagree and believe they must explicitly license their content for LLM training. AFAIK none of these legal disputes have been settled yet.
In my view you shouldn't really expect to have much control over who uses the content you post to Stack Overflow. Maybe your answer will be used by a CS101 student. But it could also be used by a defense contractor, gambling site, North Korean hacker, or darknet drug marketplace. Yes, the license requires attribution, but if ChatGPT ignores that requirement it's behaving like 90% of programmers.
Now, as a matter of academic courtesy it's nice to cite the SE post if it's feasible, but it's impossible for me to remember where I learned everything I've learned over the years. Likewise, an LLM shouldn't be forced to cite where it learned facts, which might be technically hard/impossible, but if there is a clear best source then as a matter of politeness it should. And LLMs mostly do this when they can!
Scientific papers have included references for as long as I can remember. It's not about courtesy, but precision and acknowledgement.
So, are we letting LLMs run free and do things that would be frowned upon if they were done by humans?
That'd be like saying my computer learned the film Oppenheimer when bittorrent copied it to my computer's storage system, transcoding it to a lower bitrate, and claim I'm free of copyright law because my computer just learned some facts.
All of OpenAI's products are databases with highly lossy compression applied. Using language that implies a mind is pure scam.