this post was submitted on 19 Aug 2023
67 points (95.9% liked)

No Stupid Questions

35780 readers
989 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)

Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.

Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.

Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.

Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.

Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.

Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.

Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.

Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.

Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.

Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.

Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
ja2@lemmy.world
_MoveSwiftly@lemmy.world
Rooki@lemmy.world
Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world
automodbeta@lemmy.world
L3s@lemmy.world
67
You probably need some technical restrictions as well, but from the legal perspective: is there a license that is like Creative Commons EXCEPT for use cases like use the content for training an LLM by (social.graves.cl)
submitted 1 year ago by alvaro@social.graves.cl to c/nostupidquestions@lemmy.world
9 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

You probably need some technical restrictions as well, but from the legal perspective: is there a license that is like Creative Commons EXCEPT for use cases like use the content for training an LLM by OpenAI or google?

Cc @nostupidquestions@lemmy.world

top 9 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] nothacking@discuss.tchncs.de 19 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

Would CC BY-SA do? It requires attribution, and there is no real way to attribute text from an LLM to the training data. Assuming that LLM output counts as a derivative work of the training data, which a consensus on has not be reached. (It would also be required for any other copyright based solutions)

Edit: reading the licence, it requires "a credit identifying the use of the Work in the Derivative Work", which may allow companies to just post a huge page showing all the training input, but I doubt this counts as "reasonable means".

[–] j4k3@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I don't think anything will get restricted as far as AI inputs for data. The base data doesn't really exist any more than the collective social consciousness of any given work, artist, or author. Restricting the way AI data is collected will lead to ownership of styles and adjacent works on a level that is extremely draconian. If you post anything publicly in any way, it is essentially a license for AI to use it in the same way it is a license for people to be aware of its existence...IMO...as someone actually playing with offline AI stuff daily right now and noting its limitations. This is era changing tech that is never going away. It's far better to learn to use it. All the commercial AI stuff is dying anyways. The open source side has already won, the memo is just in transit. LLMs are the framework, not the product.

[–] PlexSheep@feddit.de 3 points 1 year ago

They also took in source code covered by the GPL. The issue is still on going.

[–] rufus@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 year ago

I'd be fine if the 'SA' part forces them to share their model with me. They may scrape my website if I get the model in turn.

[–] Atemu@lemmy.ml 13 points 1 year ago

Given that for-profit immitative ML companies give exactly 0 fucks about copyright, there isn't a single license that could possibly protect you.

[–] whileloop@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I think you can just take the text of a license like Creative Commons but modify it to say that you're not giving permission to use your content to train AI.

However, if you go this route, remove the Creative Commons name from the license. CC does not permit their name/trademark being used on less permissive licenses.

[–] chickenf622@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 year ago

I mean you can make whatever terms you want in a license if it's yours. As for standard licenses like MIT or GPL. I'm not aware of any that currently exist.

[–] DocMcStuffin@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

This is what we are going to find out in the next three years. Someone could come up with a license, but we won't know if it's viable until it gets tested by the courts. There's still debate on whether scraping from copyrighted works then using that data to train a LLM (or any other ML model) is an allowed use. Technically, that is transformative of the original works, but it uses vast numbers of copyright works. The New York Times is looking at suing OpenAI over this exact issue.

In any case, if you did come up with a license, you would also have to enforce it. With no clear legal precedents that would require filling suit against any violator.

[–] match@pawb.social 1 points 1 year ago

I've actually been trying to train a model on CC (the attribution for the millions of entries is the open source dataset) - I do think you'd want to just use MIT or similar?