that's so scummy. why they even needs "names"? it's a rhetorical question...

bayindirh 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Moreover, they don't even apologize:

"The work is public, hence the name. It's well known, it's in the data. Who cares".

What will they do next? Create similar publications with domainsquatting and write all-AI articles with the "public" names?

Is it still fair use, then?

▲

kome 11 hours ago | parent [-]

yes i hate that. they still have the chutzpah of keeping doing it. and i am sure it's illegal in multiple legislation. because they are not writing articles where you can cite people, they are selling a product.

	▲	bayindirh 11 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I think we can thank the current times and developments as a whole for unearthing the greediest of the greedy among us. It's very enlightening, if you ask me.

▲

SoKamil 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Authority washing.