No, because you as a human looking at "art" over your lifetime and learning from it is not "fair use" of the copyright, it's no-use at all. This is the crux of every argument for both for language models and AI Art models, that their tools are learning how to draw, learning what styles and characteristics of input art correspond the most with words, and creating art with that knowledge just like any other human, not simply collaging together different pieces of art.
The legal relation between models and training data sets seems murky; of course, with the build tooling, you can also substitute in another instruction-following training set if you want to avoid licensing issues with the Alpaca set, whereas if you aren't concerbed with them, you can just blaze ahead.
Can't they also release the fine-tuned weights as non-commercial as well?
or you can raise $30,000,000 right now and worry about the copyright infringement lawsuit in 2026 or never.
The implication being that you're only "democratizing" something if people can make money off of it?
But maybe "democratize" is starting to mean something similar to "open". All the good words.
> This fine-tunes the [GPT-J 6B](https://huggingface.co/EleutherAI/gpt-j-6B) model on the [Alpaca](https://huggingface.co/datasets/tatsu-lab/alpaca) dataset using a Databricks notebook.
> Please note that while GPT-J 6B is Apache 2.0 licensed, the Alpaca dataset is licensed under Creative Commons NonCommercial (CC BY-NC 4.0).
...so, this cannot be used for commercial purposes