People write open source software and get "nothing" out of it.
And people post stuff on the public internet and get "nothing" out of it.
It's not obvious to me that everyone who has shared something permissively is unhappy if someone else uses it for training data. In many cases, it's just loud people who want a new revenue stream, which is the problem with intellectual property generally, the concept breeds entitlement. Why should I retroactively profit from what I willingly shared because somebody else found a use for it.
I have released works under copyleft licenses and am not OK with Microsoft using those for profit without respecting the license (e.g. without opening up the models derived from copyleft works) when Microsoft themselves have been going after others copying their works when that benefited them. They shouldn't get to have it both ways - either we reform copyright or everyone should be required to follow it. If anyhting, large corporations should be subject to stricter enforcement since they already can benefit more due to their size.
There are two issues I see here. One, it's not analogous because you're talking about physical property which is not intellectual property. One might be offended because it means the person they gave the bike to doesn't value it and really just wants to get money. They could have given it directly to someone who really wanted a bike. That's irrelevant when something can be copied for free. It would be more like if you were really good at fixing bikes and showed someone how to be good at it to, and they used what they learned to open a paid bike repair shop.
Re the actual bike thing (which has nothing to do with the discussion) I wouldn't be offended if the person sold it. In the hypothetical example, I got the enjoyment of fixing the bike, apparently gave it to someone no strings attached, and he's found a way that maximizes the utility he gets out of it. What's the problem?
And people post stuff on the public internet and get "nothing" out of it.
It's not obvious to me that everyone who has shared something permissively is unhappy if someone else uses it for training data. In many cases, it's just loud people who want a new revenue stream, which is the problem with intellectual property generally, the concept breeds entitlement. Why should I retroactively profit from what I willingly shared because somebody else found a use for it.