Let’s say your great-great grandfather stole bricks from a victim to build a factory that you now own and that provides a nice living. Because of that the victim was not able to build a factory and their descendants are poor.
Let’s say this crime is very well documented.
Did you do the crime? No. Are you reaping the benefits of the crime? Yes.
Should you give that factory to the descendants? Should you be required to help the poor descendants? Would it be a nice gesture to help the poor descendants?
Nobody is asking for the factory. People are asking for a bit of help because it’s clear that you are still reaping the benefits of a crime that was perpetrated by an ancestor and the victims descendants are still feeling the repercussions of that crime.

The dev builds are actually very recent but finding a cheap hardware is still not that easy. The forums are a great place to start, I guess.

thanks, that’s a great starting point. It seems the SanDisk players aren’t easily available anymore but I’ll look for the other compatible devices.

Newsweek is not a credible source

So I read the article and the lawsuit has nothing to do with my question. It’s more about precedent and actually finding out what the laws are if everything is as claimed.

Still think detectability is an interesting question.

I didn’t read the article but does it say anything about detectability? If I claim I created it who can prove an AI did?