The market reality is that consumers and businesses prioritize the best-performing AI models, regardless of whether their training data was ethically sourced. This dynamic incentivizes labs to use all available data, including copyrighted works, and treat potential fines as a cost of doing business.

Related Insights

The proliferation of AI leaderboards incentivizes companies to optimize models for specific benchmarks. This creates a risk of "acing the SATs" where models excel on tests but don't necessarily make progress on solving real-world problems. This focus on gaming metrics could diverge from creating genuine user value.

Public leaderboards like LM Arena are becoming unreliable proxies for model performance. Teams implicitly or explicitly "benchmark" by optimizing for specific test sets. The superior strategy is to focus on internal, proprietary evaluation metrics and use public benchmarks only as a final, confirmatory check, not as a primary development target.

Anthropic's $1.5B copyright settlement highlights that massive infringement fines are no longer an existential threat to major AI labs. With the ability to raise vast sums of capital, these companies can absorb such penalties by simply factoring them into their next funding round, treating them as a predictable operational expense.

Many leaders mistakenly halt AI adoption while waiting for perfect data governance. This is a strategic error. Organizations should immediately identify and implement the hundreds of high-value generative AI use cases that require no access to proprietary data, creating immediate wins while larger data initiatives continue.

The future of valuable AI lies not in models trained on the abundant public internet, but in those built on scarce, proprietary data. For fields like robotics and biology, this data doesn't exist to be scraped; it must be actively created, making the data generation process itself the key competitive moat.

Don't trust academic benchmarks. Labs often "hill climb" or game them for marketing purposes, which doesn't translate to real-world capability. Furthermore, many of these benchmarks contain incorrect answers and messy data, making them an unreliable measure of true AI advancement.

When an AI tool generates copyrighted material, don't assume the technology provider bears sole legal responsibility. The user who prompted the creation is also exposed to liability. As legal precedent lags, users must rely on their own ethical principles to avoid infringement.

Labs are incentivized to climb leaderboards like LM Arena, which reward flashy, engaging, but often inaccurate responses. This focus on "dopamine instead of truth" creates models optimized for tabloids, not for advancing humanity by solving hard problems.

The best AI models are trained on data that reflects deep, subjective qualities—not just simple criteria. This "taste" is a key differentiator, influencing everything from code generation to creative writing, and is shaped by the values of the frontier lab.

Companies are becoming wary of feeding their unique data and customer queries into third-party LLMs like ChatGPT. The fear is that this trains a potential future competitor. The trend will shift towards running private, open-source models on their own cloud instances to maintain a competitive moat and ensure data privacy.

Consumer Demand for Performance Outweighs Desire for Ethically Sourced AI Models | RiffOn