> I think that depends on the application of "designed to simulate human intelligence" (Definition "b").. If that statement does not apply to the previously men

> I think that depends on the application of "designed to simulate human intelligence" (Definition "b").. If that statement does not apply to the previously mentioned "algorithms" in the definition, I think it's safe for most (current) search engines. But then, what does it apply to? Are LLMs "designed to simulate human intelligence"? What about image generators? Like, their outputs can be similar to what "human intelligence" might produce, but if we're talking intent at the design level, I'm doubtful that any of their developers sat down with the thought of "let's replicate a human". > I imagine there would be a fight in various laws/constitutions saying that the license is illegal/not allowed/etc in most places as it would not support accessibility (e.g. AI based text-to-speech for those that need it)... Either this or "right to public info" you mention in the next paragraph are smaller issues in comparison to asking whether they can even make these clauses. If AI use isn't found to be automatically in violation of copyright just through mere inclusion in a dataset, then this license will be meaningless because you can't sign away law in a license.