That's different. They train on scrapes of the web. They don't train on data submitted to their API by their paying customers.

If they're bold enough to say they train on data they do not own, I am not optimistic when they say they don't train on data people willingly submit to them.

I don't understand your logic there.

They have confessed to doing a bad thing - training on copyrighted data without permission. Why does that indicate they would lie about a worse thing?

>Why does that indicate they would lie about a worse thing?

Because they know their audience. It's an audience that also doesn't care for copyright and would love for them to win their court cases. They are fineaking such an argument to those kinds of people.

Meanwhile, the reaction from the same audience when legal did a very typical subpoena process on said data, data they chose to submit to an online server of their own volition, completely freaked out. Suddenly, they felt like their privacy was invaded.

It doesn't make any logical sense in my mind, but a lot of the discourse over this topic isnt based on logic.

Oh, they never even made that promise. They're trying to say it's fine to launder copyright material through a model.