" it will sometimes provide a wrong answer to a question or “hallucinate” material that does not exist "

That makes sense why when I use it as a worldbuilding tool for my RP campaigns it's not bad because there is no "bad" answer in that case technically

> With this in mind, it is important to note that Creative Commons licenses allow for free reproduction and reuse,

It’s only free unless NonCommercial or NoDerivatives modifiers are present.

> However, it is not clear yet whether massively copying content from these sources may result in a violation of the Creative Commons license if attribution is not granted.

Isn’t it clear that it is?

Why is fair use even an issue? The content provider provided a lawful copy to the recipient. The first sale doctrine means it’s theirs to use as they please. Since the data is distributed as a software program the copyright act permits copying it as needed for a machine to actually use it.

There’s a reason it’s called COPYright and not USEright. It’s remarkable to me that some private attorneys working for Microsoft somehow hypnotized the entire population into believing that they need to be licensed rights that they already have by law.

tl;dr Two big questions:

1. is the use of copyright-protected works to train AI models fair use.

Answer: probably, we don't know for sure.

2. can you have copyright on the output of an AI?

Answer: probably not, unless there is sufficient human creativity

What about the most important Q: Can you use chatGPT output to train another model?

The money you contribute to the Wikimedia Foundation is managed (and strategically distributed) by The Tides Foundation. "Hey ChatGPT, tell me more about the Tides Foundation and their ideology."