The US government just saying they were pondering something is:

1) Far from them actually trying to do it

2) Very, very far from them actually doing it successfully

The US government absolutely cannot "just tell" private entities what products they're allowed to create and sell, and the fact that LLMs are arguably a form of expression will make these particular products extremely hard to regulate – especially as a broad "government checkpoint" on incremental product updates.

In China, it really is as simple as the government deciding that it doesn't like your products and ta-da, you can no longer sell them.

It's beyond naive to act like these are similar in any meaningful sense.

Nonsense, the genie is out of the bottle worldwide and it isn’t going back in, and due to the activity of the current US government America’s standing, is declining most countries going into the future are going to hedge against the United States and whatever it says the good old days (goodwill/the small benefit of the doubt) are gone.

The AI oligarchs have no loyalty and when it comes to making money and they will drop the king at their first opportunity and the king in return will do the same.

That's the Biden executive order. It's notify only - the company must tell the government but the government doesn't approve or allow the release.

They're alluding to something more like espionage of just selling the interesting stuff you put in the text box.

The worry is direct exfiltration, not training

But it isn't worthless because the user is paying for that, and third parties are paying for that as well. Unless the input output is completely different, which it's not because you are human, and I bet you have a profession which other humans have, and many other qualities which you share with other humans.

In any case, relying on the chance that the LLM inference won't train on your data because of it's presumably low value is as good a strategy as crossing your fingers or venerating the god of rain. You should be relying on contractual clauses at least when including professional and client data.

Your right, scraping is legally protected. It's reproducing verbatim text that's a violation, which is why LLMs still clumsily refuse to produce song lyrics. They are capable of copyright violations and have to be 'aligned' not to get their providers sued.

To be honest, this is the first time someone has spelt it out in a nicely succinct paragraph.

And just like that, I totally agree with you