AI generated

It mostly boils down to breach of contract rather than copyright law, combined with how the open-source ecosystem has evolved. Every major frontier provider-- OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, and Microsoft-- has explicit anti-competition and anti-distillation clauses in their Terms of Service. They legally grant you ownership of your outputs, but contractually restrict using those outputs to train or evaluate competing models. Under US law, AI-generated text generally isn't protected by copyright, but Terms of Service are enforceable contracts. If an entity builds a centralized platform specifically designed to solicit, aggregate, and distribute proprietary outputs for model training, they expose themselves to tortious interference and contract inducement claims. Frontier labs usually don't bother hunting down individual users sharing one-off snippets, but a centralized repository hosting massive datasets is an easy target. The moment a project gets significant traction, the provider legal teams send cease-and-desist notices. Defending against multi-trillion-dollar legal departments over a community passion project isn't realistic for any individual dev. Even a small consortium would exhaust themselves quickly. Beyond the legal hurdles, the practical need for another ShareGPT largely died out. Crowdsourced UI logs are notoriously messy, inconsistent, full of private user data, and heavily poisoned by trivial everyday prompts. Once Meta updated the Llama licenses to explicitly allow synthetic data generation and distillation, and labs like DeepSeek released open frontier models, the community shifted. Modern fine-tuning datasets are built using systematic, programmatic pipelines with strict quality filtering rather than relying on noisy, crowdsourced web chats.