That was kind of the opposite point. That OpenAI would have some nerves to be mad a google to use ChatGPT to generate training data when they used everyone's data to get training data.

We're talking about ethics here, not unethical legal loopholes

Looks good. Perhaps put only the most popular version of the game instead of all of them to not inflate the medal count when there multiple categories versus one.

I guess my comment was unclear. I would be sad to not use or try Android, or other products from Apple, Google, Microsoft. Those companies are building useful things. But I'm glad I don't use products from crypto.com, stripe, peloton, coinbase and so on. With perhaps the exception from WhatsApp (but it feels so remote from Meta and I see or need no difference from the time it was independent from it).

None of them are doing useful stuff to be fair. I'd be sad to have never tried Apple, Google, or Microsoft products but I'm glad I never used any of these (stripe, coinbase, peloton etc).

No they come first from for non-profit science, which is the biggest breakthrough. I'm not saying companies are useless: they leverage greed to accelerate the productionizaton, scalability, and marketing of science breakthroughs and this is useful. But here we're not talking about not having companies, but after having successful companies and making billions, giving some of these billions away. If you want to be convincing you should cite examples of billionaires not giving their billions and making our life liveable because of that.

Donating is generally done to organisations so it is not giving man a fish but giving a teacher and a medic the tool to help the man learn, grow, and heal.

The difference is that these organizations are driven by the usefulness to the people while a company is driven by its profits. Only in some case profits and usefulness to the people is aligned.