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
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
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?
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".
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.
They also took in source code covered by the GPL. The issue is still on going.
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.
Given that for-profit immitative ML companies give exactly 0 fucks about copyright, there isn't a single license that could possibly protect you.
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.
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.
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.
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?