A somewhat common but strange response to the consumer request for AI disclosures on products is to suggest that if you did this, you should have to disclose all sorts of other things (how many people worked on the product, what other software you used, what hardware it was made on, etc.) I can understand that some people don't like the idea of having AI disclosures, so they immediately try to think of arguments against it. But respectfully, this one makes no sense. Product labeling requirements are driven by demand, either from consumers or from competitors. There is no significant cross-section of the public asking to know if a game was made on machines with AMD or Intel hardware. There is no significant cross-section of the industry demanding that their competitors list whether or not they used Adobe Premier. Product labeling is not about giving you a complete set of information about how a product was made. It's about giving the consumer information that a significant number of them might want to know before making a purchase. Which ones of these get codified can be driven by consumer demand, competitor demand, or - most commonly - a combination of the two. This is not weird. It's good, actually. And it's especially good if an industry takes proactive steps to voluntarily label their products accurately, because then they avoid the inevitable alternative, which is that the consumer demand for the missing labeling produces a political movement which ends with mandatory labeling designed by a political body.

When AI companies pirate something*, it's "fair use". When someone pirates their model data, it's "stealing" and "undermining American research". * - Literally pirate. Multiple court admissions have made clear that AI companies download millions of works from pirate sites.