I thought the title meant the training data used was ethics content and ethical reasoning. Turns out "ethically trained" means the training data used doesn't violate copyright laws.
Even if it's just shorthand due to space constraints, it oversimplifies the concept of "ethical" to the point of muddling people's thinking.
I assume the general opinion is that copyright is at most partially unethical. That’s what the AI discussion is about too, i.e. artist copyright.
This ofc means that the LLM is completely pointless.
The creators crying foul of AI are painting themselves into a corner, both literally and figuratively.
There is a legal difference as well as a technical difference. AIs don't learn the same way human brains do. The law does not treat these things the same. You may want to draw an analogy between the two and say they're "basically the same", but they are not basically the same. They aren't the same at all, outside of a very weak analogy. Is training kind of sort of like human learning? Yes. That doesn't mean anything. Dogs are kind of sort of like children, but if you try to treat your child the way you treat your dog, you end up in prison. Because children aren't dogs, either in reality, or in the eyes of the legal system.
Please, AI boosters, stop using this one. Human brains aren't clocks. Human brains aren't computers. Human brains aren't LLMs. AI training does not mimic human learning in any significant way.