I don't get it.<p>Like, it's one thing if a fact-collecting business like the NYTimes doesn't want its stories to train an MML. I think under current law they don't have much of a case, because <i>facts</i> aren't copyrightable, but there's a reasonable argument that the law should be updated somehow in light of technological change.<p>But the work produced by all StackExchange users is <i>explicitly</i> released under a CC BY-SA license. The whole <i>point</i> is to collect and publish facts/ideas/understanding for anyone to see and use for any purpose, including running a business. Yes, the "SA" (share alike) part means if you want to use and modify the <i>words</i> then you need to release them under license that is at least as permissive, but LLMs aren't using the words; they are clearly digesting the facts and expressing them in their own words. And, unlike the NYTimes, there is no issue of "couldn't new tech undermine society's current method of economically incentivizing fact-collection?". The StackExchange users are not being paid, and the fact that the license is <i>not</i> NC (non-commercial) explicitly means that using their hard work to make money is allowed (and encouraged!).