Comment by pessimizer

I'm sorry, but we've made a lot of conversations illegal and pretended like that was all right. I'm sure we've made advising people how to dodge paywalls illegal as part of DMCA and/or some anti-hacking law, or some other garbage. I'm also sure that you run an automated service that will advise and has advised people on how to dodge paywalls. Even if there are exceptions for individuals giving advice to friends, or people giving advice for free, you are neither of those: you are a profit-making paid corporation that is automating this process which may be illegal. You may be a hacking endorser, a hacking advisor, and a hacking tool.

Under those circumstances, why wouldn't NYT have a case? I advise everybody who employs some sort of DRM or online system that limits access to ask for every chat that every one of these companies has ever had with anyone. Why are they the only people who get to break copyright and hacking laws? Why are they the only people who get to have private conversations?

I might also check if any LLMs have ever endorsed terrorist points of view (or banned political parties) during a chat, because even though those points of view may be correct (depending on the organization), endorsing them may be illegal and make you subject to sanctions or arrest. If people can't just speak, certainly corporate LLMs shouldn't be able to.