Just out of curiosity, do you think that licensing your posts under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 makes it illegal to use them to train an AI? If so, why do you think that? I post GPL licensed code online, so I’m interested in this topic.
If you write code, you might be aware of the AI coding assistants out there. Most notable is probably Github’s Copilot. Well, that AI assistant has an ongoing case against it to answer the question you’re asking. So, just like you add a GPL (or other) license to your code, creative commons licenses are for text and media that aren’t code and I add it to my comments.
Whether they will have an impact has yet to be determined, so we’ll see if creative commons with a non-commercial clause is for naught or not.
Inserted with a keystroke running this script on linux with X11
#!/usr/bin/env nix-shell#!nix-shell -i bash --packages xautomation xclipsleep 0.2
(echo'::: spoiler Anti Commercial AI thingy
[CC BY-NC-SA 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/)
Inserted with a keystroke running this script on linux with X11
```bash'cat"$0"echo'```
:::') | xclip -selection clipboard
xte "keydown Control_L""key V""keyup Control_L"
Anything you write should be proprietary by default. So I don’t think you have to add this license to your comments just to achieve your goal. But it makes sense if you also want to give some extra rights to people.
If AI reads your code, but the output is something entirely different, why would that be illegal? Isn’t that the same as a human reading something? I’m curious what the courts will decide, though.
I don’t want to help Microsoft, but some of the arguments made in that article are strange. If AI means the end of software licenses, that means the end of copyright, which is a good thing. When AI gets better, we might be able to feed it leaked or decompiled source code and get something that we can legally use. That’s not the current situation, though. At the moment Microsoft uses libre, copylefted software to improve their proprietary program and that’s bad. But I don’t think we can do anything about it other than telling people to not use it.
My stance is just staunchly anti-commercial and I would rather see a non-commercial AI be allowed to use my text than a commercial one. Whether copyright law will reflect that is hitherto unknown - at least in the EU and the US, I think. Japan has already made a ruling that copyright doesn’t exist for AI - or so I understand it. IANAL
If AI reads your code, but the output is something entirely different, why would that be illegal? Isn’t that the same as a human reading something?
That line of reasoning is logical, however copyright has never made any sense to me. “Likeness” can be copyrighted. Copying a copyrighted work is not allowed, but coming up with a solution that is nigh identical to another in a “clean room” is legal. Using old black and white mickey mouse is now public domain, but adding color suddenly makes it illegal. Learning something proprietary on the job and using it immediately at another employer is illegal but wait a year and it’s legal even though the old employer never updated the solution.
It makes no sense to me and doesn’t seem logical at all 🤷 Laws are like scientific models: attempts at making sense of the world. Some are better than others.
Inserted with a keystroke running this script on linux with X11
#!/usr/bin/env nix-shell#!nix-shell -i bash --packages xautomation xclipsleep 0.2
(echo'::: spoiler Anti Commercial AI thingy
[CC BY-NC-SA 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/)
Inserted with a keystroke running this script on linux with X11
```bash'cat"$0"echo'```
:::') | xclip -selection clipboard
xte "keydown Control_L""key V""keyup Control_L"
Just out of curiosity, do you think that licensing your posts under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 makes it illegal to use them to train an AI? If so, why do you think that? I post GPL licensed code online, so I’m interested in this topic.
If you write code, you might be aware of the AI coding assistants out there. Most notable is probably Github’s Copilot. Well, that AI assistant has an ongoing case against it to answer the question you’re asking. So, just like you add a GPL (or other) license to your code, creative commons licenses are for text and media that aren’t code and I add it to my comments.
Whether they will have an impact has yet to be determined, so we’ll see if creative commons with a non-commercial clause is for naught or not.
Anti Commercial AI thingy
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
Inserted with a keystroke running this script on linux with X11
#!/usr/bin/env nix-shell #!nix-shell -i bash --packages xautomation xclip sleep 0.2 (echo '::: spoiler Anti Commercial AI thingy [CC BY-NC-SA 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/) Inserted with a keystroke running this script on linux with X11 ```bash' cat "$0" echo '``` :::') | xclip -selection clipboard xte "keydown Control_L" "key V" "keyup Control_L"Anything you write should be proprietary by default. So I don’t think you have to add this license to your comments just to achieve your goal. But it makes sense if you also want to give some extra rights to people.
If AI reads your code, but the output is something entirely different, why would that be illegal? Isn’t that the same as a human reading something? I’m curious what the courts will decide, though.
I don’t want to help Microsoft, but some of the arguments made in that article are strange. If AI means the end of software licenses, that means the end of copyright, which is a good thing. When AI gets better, we might be able to feed it leaked or decompiled source code and get something that we can legally use. That’s not the current situation, though. At the moment Microsoft uses libre, copylefted software to improve their proprietary program and that’s bad. But I don’t think we can do anything about it other than telling people to not use it.
My stance is just staunchly anti-commercial and I would rather see a non-commercial AI be allowed to use my text than a commercial one. Whether copyright law will reflect that is hitherto unknown - at least in the EU and the US, I think. Japan has already made a ruling that copyright doesn’t exist for AI - or so I understand it. IANAL
That line of reasoning is logical, however copyright has never made any sense to me. “Likeness” can be copyrighted. Copying a copyrighted work is not allowed, but coming up with a solution that is nigh identical to another in a “clean room” is legal. Using old black and white mickey mouse is now public domain, but adding color suddenly makes it illegal. Learning something proprietary on the job and using it immediately at another employer is illegal but wait a year and it’s legal even though the old employer never updated the solution.
It makes no sense to me and doesn’t seem logical at all 🤷 Laws are like scientific models: attempts at making sense of the world. Some are better than others.
Anti Commercial AI thingy
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
Inserted with a keystroke running this script on linux with X11
#!/usr/bin/env nix-shell #!nix-shell -i bash --packages xautomation xclip sleep 0.2 (echo '::: spoiler Anti Commercial AI thingy [CC BY-NC-SA 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/) Inserted with a keystroke running this script on linux with X11 ```bash' cat "$0" echo '``` :::') | xclip -selection clipboard xte "keydown Control_L" "key V" "keyup Control_L"