They didn't believe it was sketchy. They were just worried that the commentariat on HN will frame it in a dumb, manipulative way like that.

Judging by how AI threads look like for the past year, they were absolutely right to be worried.

> largest copyright theft operation in human history

In fact, you're doing exactly that right here.

The comment you're replying to is citing almost verbatim [1] Microsoft’s director of Applied Science, Brent Hecht, who called OpenAI's data collection practices "the largest theft of labor in human history" in an internal memo.

[1] https://techcrunch.com/2026/09/17/microsoft-exec-called-ai-s...

> frame it in a dumb, manipulative way like that > In fact, you're doing exactly that right here.

You're dead fucking right they are doing exactly that. They are saying that what is wrong is wrong.

Instead you seem to be making out that AI companies are some kind of victim that has to "worry" about "manipulation". Meanwhile authors are out of a job right now and not by accident. What's up with that?

> They were just worried that the commentariat on HN will frame it in a dumb, manipulative way like that.

You’re chastising others for a tone you are yourself employing, and are making monumental assumptions based on a few choice quotes. From the quotes alone you can’t tell if OpenAI thought libgen was sketchy or not.

Also, contrary to what you’re claiming, they were wrong. HN in general seems to approve on libgen when used for its purpose of downloading some books on an individual level. The complaint you’re replying to is about what OpenAI did with the data, it has nothing to do with the website they got it from.