Artists have complained about their artwork being stolen, people are arguing about threads.net stealing their data on despite this being a public forum, Reddit, Twitter, Github and other platforms are putting up walls to to stop AI bots from scraping everything.

However generative AI and large language models have been been spitting out their training data including copyright notices and other stuff verbatim. “poem poem poem to get personal data from ChatGPT”.

So, instead of providing all our comments for free to LLMs, how about adding a copyright notice to everything we write?

I propose the Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International license? Basically, if somebody uses your comment, they have to attribute you, but they may not use it for commercial purposes.

This license requires that reusers give credit to the creator. It allows reusers to distribute, remix, adapt, and build upon the material in any medium or format, for noncommercial purposes only. If others modify or adapt the material, they must license the modified material under identical terms.

All you’d need to do is add this text CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 Deed anywhere in your comment or post.

  • General_Effort@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    6 months ago

    When I post something here, I usually have the hope that someone else benefits from it in some small, tiny way. Either because it makes them laugh or because it gives them valuable information.

    I don’t understand why anyone would post if they can’t bear the idea that someone else might get a tiny, little something for free.

    • FaceDeer@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      It really bothers me how normalized the “screw everyone else, I want to get paid!” Attitude has become. OP is just assuming that everyone agrees with it. I want AI to be well trained. If self-interest must be assumed then consider how useful AI is for you.

      And copyright doesn’t even apply here in any event. Training an AI is not copying, it is learning.

      • Osa-Eris-Xero512@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        I think a lot of the concern here, for me if noone else, is them taking the data and then turning it around into a closed for-sale product. If AI is going to be trained, it should be trained well, but if the result of doing so is them turning around and charging [me/us/everyone, as applicable] an ass load for the privilege of its use then I want no part of it.

        AI trained on public data should be public. So if adding boilerplate is the solution to this problem, let it be infectious licensing which forces opening of the resultant model to the public.

        • FaceDeer@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          Even private for-pay AI is useful to me. Even ones I don’t pay for myself, since other AI developers have been making heavy use of existing AI models to generate data for training their own new models.

          In any event, as I said, copyright doesn’t even apply here. Adding a CC license does nothing, it’s not “infectious” to AI models trained off of it.

          • Osa-Eris-Xero512@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            Yeah, CC doesn’t cover it in any case. Any attempt would probably need some sort of bespoke license to specifically target the training use case while still allowing comments to be used like normal.

            And a Microsoft-sized pile of money to fight it out in court.

            • FaceDeer@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              If copyright doesn’t apply to AI training, then no license of any sort will “work” because the trainers could simply refuse it.

              Copyleft works because if you refuse the license you’re left with no rights to use the work in question. But if you don’t need copyright permission to train, that’s fine.

    • onlinepersona@programming.devOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

      Power nor wealth doesn’t come from a single individual, but from a great many.

      Just because you vote, say or do something, doesn’t mean it’ll change much of anything. But if hundreds, thousands, millions, or billions do, then we have change. It’s exactly the same with data. A single data-point is not worth very much.

      • General_Effort@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        If we all work together, we can make sure that none of us can benefit from the other? How does that even make sense?

        Look. I am unable to understand why this bothers you. I like feeling I have a positive effect on the world. I like knowing, EG, that my taxes help the less fortunate. What you are saying seems completely absurd to me.

        • nicetriangle@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          Your comment assumes everyone agrees ChatGPT or other LMMs/etc are a net benefit to society.

          I’m on the fence about it myself.