Hacker News Reader

No. Either MIT/BSD code isn't fair game because it requires attribution, or GPL/AGPL code is fair game because it isn't copyright infringement in the first place so no license is required.

It'll be a court fight to determine which. Worse, it will be a court fight that plays out in a bunch of different countries and they probably won't all come to the same conclusion. It's unlikely the two licenses have a different effect here though. Either they both forbid it, or neither had the power to forbid it in the first place.

Precisely, this is such a basic violation of GPL it’s mind boggling they went for it.

Is there an updated version of these license(s) that explicitly excludes projects from being used for training of AIs?

> but isn't the whole point of GPL/AGPL "you can read and share and use this, but you can't take it and roll it into your closed commercial product for profit"?

You can profit from GPL / AGPL code but just also make all your source code open source and available for everyone to see.