I imagine most licenses that are AI restrictive indirectly can potentially be circumvented.
Edit: looks like there already is https://github.com/non-ai-licenses/non-ai-licenses
cost has always been an issue, from bandwidth to storage to system maint, to electricity - the bills gotta get paid somehow; its not like websites are gov funded to keep those 9's happy
Whether we should be stripping people of their free speech rights[0] to stop a parasitic enclosure of the commons that might sidestep existing copyright law, which is being cheered on by the proprietary world, is another question. Copyright law as it currently stands does not and cannot protect artists against AI that is going to salami slice tiny bits of statistical data from their work and mix it with hundreds of other slices to form a new image. That sort of harm is difficult to prosecute even if I personally think it's Not Fair Use. So adding a NoAI clause to Creative Commons would mainly serve to add a bunch of new incompatible licenses, and argumentation over whether or not this is Free Culture.
The correct way to stop generative AI is with collective action, not individual action, because the harm is to the whole class of artists, not a single artist. There is no "collective copyright" that would allow regulation or prohibition of generative AI.
[0] Under US law, fair use is the projection of the 1st Amendment into copyright law.
* BY: Attribution requirement, every CC license has this
* SA: Share-alike, aka "copyleft", RMS-style "virality"[0] but without a source code requirement since that is impractical outside of software.
* NC: NonCommercial, license only covers not-for-profit usecases and filesharing
* ND: License does not allow derivative works
These can be combined like so:
* CC-BY
* CC-BY-SA <- This one was used by StackOverflow!
* CC-BY-ND
* CC-BY-NC
* CC-BY-NC-SA
* CC-BY-NC-ND
Only the first two are "RMS compatible" licenses.
[0] Copyright is already viral, share-alike/copyleft clauses just patch the virus to attack itself. It's the "treating your leukemia with HIV" of licensing.
Preferred form for editing is practical for any content that is edited in digital form; if it is impractical at all, its for works where editing is done to some non-digital artifact which is then digitized, and where the norm for further modifications would be the same, and where the digital form is itself not renderable back into the artifact. But I can't think of any real examples.
For billions of text posts. Good luck. With that.
On the surface Creative Commons licenses are "AI-friendly" - in that they exist to opt-out of parts of copyright protection - but in practice AI goes against the spirit of Creative Commons so heavily that actually complying with it is impossible. If your attribution string requires its own search engine, maybe it's not effective attribution?
For the record I don't think training is going to be fair use. The AI model you're training is usurping the market for new art/writing/etc, and there's a clear chain of provenance from the training data to the final model and specific outputs (in at least some cases, e.g. "draw a 1970s scifi robot" giving you C3PO).