> This reads like damage control to me in an effort to temporarily silence the loudest critics. I think it is to avoid any common law wrongs related to the pub

> This reads like damage control to me in an effort to temporarily silence the loudest critics. I think it is to avoid any common law wrongs related to the publicity rights of the defendants. It seems like something that a legal team would flag as an unnecessary risk for the product. Removing their names and images from the training data doesn't impact the usefulness of the model while at the same time creating a much smaller surface area for collecting subpoenas.