I gave my time and expertise to StackOverflow because it was licensed CC-BY-SA

Re:I gave my time and expertise to StackOverflow because it ... by CommanderData on Sunday May 12, 2024 @03:42AM (#40332844)

I think a explicit AI-hostile / AI non-friendly license is needed which explicitly denies work being trained on. For the small minority who do not wish to feed the LLM, shortsighted maybe but I can see a group of people who are all for source available but not for AI.

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

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:I gave my time and expertise to StackOverflow because it ... by crote on Sunday May 12, 2024 @04:12AM (#40332948)

The problem is that AI is making use of the Fair Use exception. They don't need to follow the license - fair use means they can just ignore it!

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:I gave my time and expertise to StackOverflow because it ... by out-of-ideas on Sunday May 12, 2024 @04:58AM (#40333113)

i think the bigger problem folks have is these ai tools charge a premium for data which was consumed from publicly open websites, where folks originally contributed their knowledge with the belief that others could access the information as-is (paraphrased or what have you)- without being charged a fee

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

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:I gave my time and expertise to StackOverflow because it ... by kmeisthax on Sunday May 12, 2024 @01:03PM (#40335899)

Licenses can strip you of your fair use rights. In fact, it's common practice to take away fair use even for really weak licenses (e.g. D&D's OGL 1.1, a license to do nothing). Creative Commons has to have an explicit clause stating that any fair use is allowed regardless of the other clauses of the license just to not be interpreted as a restriction of fair use.

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]