bluck

Quite uninteresting to read as the article does not go into any depth and it feels simply like the "hacking agent" also wrote the blockpost. Learned nothing

I'm just trying to understand licenses, but doesn't the choice of MIT contradict the inital "non-commercial purposes" as MIT says 'including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software' - Therefore, the non-commercial purposes is actually void and I can use the software to the limits of MIT defines? And because it is already MIT, they can relicense only future software but not this piece anymore?

Copyright Shield

OpenAI is committed to protecting our customers with built-in copyright safeguards in our systems. Today, we’re going one step further and introducing Copyright Shield—we will now step in and defend our customers, and pay the costs incurred, if you face legal claims around copyright infringement. This applies to generally available features of ChatGPT Enterprise and our developer platform.

So essentially they are giving devs a free pass to treat any output as free of copyright infringement? Pretty bold when training data sources are kinda unknown.