It mimics it in all the ways that are relevant to the request to "cite your sources". Speak to someone on the street about the moon landing and they probably won't be able to cite the exact author and textbook that told them "the moon landing happened in 1969". Based on the article, it seems citing that source would be required of chatgpt under such regulation.
Citing sources isn’t usually called for unless trying to present something as one’s own work — man on the street questions generally don’t rise to that standard. They also lack a profit motive.
Citing sources is also, traditionally, a key method of separating the work you built upon from the work you yourself derived/created/expanded. If one does not cite their sources, there is no way to establish if the presented work is their own, or copy+pasting someone else’s.
I thought it was clear: openAI devs are asked to disclose their training data. If the prompt say it's sources or not isn't present.
By the way: a gdpr exception exist for AI and research projects. The lawmakers at the time listened to us (I worked for a big data Paas that mostly worked with universities and BigCorp R&D at the time) and were generous as the baked-in exception was pretty much word for word what was asked, because it was in good faith.
Actors like OpenAI risk poisoning the well, or spoil the good apples, or whatever image you want to use. This is not much. It isn't asked that they Gpl their code, or that they put a 'source' under each response. They don't have to change anything to their tech. They don't have to disclose their fine-tuning either. Just, make a list of the datasources you used, and publish it.
