Lol, it just reminded me of that. I don’t care either way, good for you for standing up for shit. I just think anything I say will never have any impact on shit one way or the other. To me it’s like having a conversation on the street and then saying, don’t repeat what I said it’s trademarked, or something. If you’re posting art or actual creative content then fine, you have all reason to say so, but a comment on a discussion online… I’m not trying to copyright my shit takes on everyday speech. If you think for one second anyone cares or will care what we talk about here and now then go ahead, it doesn’t affect me one way or another, but I don’t see the need. That link will not stop anyone for using your words from bot training or whatever.
To me it’s like having a conversation on the street and then saying, don’t repeat what I said it’s trademarked, or something
People don’t record your conversation on the street and sell that audio recording to a company to use to build/program their AI models, without compensating you.
What do you mean? I live in one of the most surveillanced places in the world, almost everyone I live around in every house I visit for work has literally paid for the privilege to record everything that happens near their house and is uploaded to computers for God knows what. It’s actually naive to think that not every single aspect of your life is being documented and transmitted into data at this very moment and that a simple link saying don’t do this is going to stop any of it. On top of that what do you mean are we done? I didn’t question anything about what you were doing I asked what the link was you answered me and then I said that was dumb we were done after I said it was dumb.
I’m not the OP, but I don’t feel like it would affect the process of harvesting your data or put some burden on the company doing it, since they have big bucks. But at the same time I’m not against it for it can lead to many humorous examples of AI putting this license after it’s replies after learning on your content. It would be the platinum tier absurdity and I’m all for it.
I’m not the OP, but I don’t feel like it would affect the process of harvesting your data or put some burden on the company doing it, since they have big bucks.
Maybe. For me its a combination of very easy to add the license, hoping fellow coders who create the models will honor a Creative Commons license, and figuring that at some point in the future Congress will get around to passing laws about who owns content, how its labled, and how others can scrape such data. There’s already arguments going on between big corporations about paying to use the content to build the models, so I’m assuming that lobbying is being done right now in that category.
Though honestly I might just get bored some day and talk to my lawyer friend about what I would need to do to test this all out. Boredom is something you have at times, when retired.
But at the same time I’m not against it for it can lead to many humorous examples of AI putting this license after it’s replies after learning on your content. It would be the platinum tier absurdity and I’m all for it.
lol! I never heard of this, that’s really funny actually.
Now that you mention it, in theory, we could all “black box” input into the models by having wacky stuff in our comments.
It’s superstitious clutter. Most websites require you to license the content you post to them without those restrictions, and AI training may not even involve copyright in the first place, meaning the license is moot. It just makes you look silly.
“Lemmy” isn’t a website. I’m not even viewing this from a Lemmy instance, I’m on an mbin server. Do you understand how the Fediverse works? Your posts are being copied and transmitted to everyone regardless of what restrictions you claim you’re putting on them, if you don’t want them used that way then don’t post in the first place.
And if you’re finding this argument about your spam to be entertaining there’s a word for that. I likely shouldn’t be feeding that but this thread is already thoroughly derailed.
Allow me to play devil’s advocate here, but what you are saying about the fediverse seems to be completely compliant with that license. The content can be freely redistributed provided it is fine in a noncommercial way and with attribution (which is the case, right? We see the comment author).
Also, the argument “X is going to be done regardless” applies to all licenses (thinking about open source licenses). There is nothing that physically stops you from taking open source code and violate its license but if you get caught doing so, you are liable.
Maybe today there is nothing that would make anybody accountable about grabbing public data, training AI on it and reselling it, but if in the future regulations will change, it will be hard(er?) for those companies to claim that certain content was distributed freely etc., in cases where the author explicitly and unequivocally stated the terms.
The content can be freely redistributed provided it is fine in a noncommercial way and with attribution (which is the case, right? We see the comment author).
There’s nothing preventing a Fediverse instance from showing ads, which would commercialize the comments on it.
Furthermore, they’re posting from Lemmy.world. Lemmy.world’s terms of service include this clause:
You waive Lemmy.World and its parent, subsidiaries, affiliates, and all their respective staff, representatives, service providers, contractors, licensors, licensees, and successors from any claims resulting from any action taken by Lemmy.World, and any of the foregoing parties relating to any investigations by either us or by law enforcement authorities.
That goes even further than the usual boilerplate on sites like Reddit that say “you grant us license to do whatever we want with the stuff you post here.”
And besides all that, copyleft licensing (and copyright in general) likely has no relevance to AI training regardless. Copyleft licensing only has power because it grants permission to make copies of something. You can actually reject a copyleft license, if you want, it just means that you can’t make copies of the thing once you’ve rejected the license. But training an AI doesn’t require making copies of anything, it only requires analyzing a copy that you already have. You don’t need permission to analyze something that you can already legally read.
There are of course some interesting court cases currently wending their way through various legal systems, and all sorts of legislation pending in all sorts of different countries, but as things stand right now that CC link is just pointless spam that’s being held up as a totem against witchcraft.
Whats this ‘Freddyverse’ that you speak of? Is it like Costco?
Your posts are being copied and transmitted to everyone regardless of what restrictions you claim you’re putting on them, if you don’t want them used that way then don’t post in the first place.
I’ll be sure to petition the Lemmy web client people to remove the link button from their editor.
Is there some Lemmy rule somewhere that I don’t know about that says I can’t attach a Creative Commons license to my comments?
It’s pretty much just a flag in the robots.txt
Because everyone knows that’s always honored and obeyed, right?
Also, it’s a proprietary flag created by Google and only used by Google (per the article you linked).
So if you want to actually make a difference, lobby your Lemmy instance to add this flag.
Or do both.
Because users are the final owners of their own content, their own comments. Not Lemmy, not anyone else. They have the first responsibility of protecting their rights.
I just think it’s silly that people think it actually works.
Besides, if AI really is powerful enough to make a splash in the world, wouldn’t you WANT it to contain your data? That would make it more favorable to your viewpoints.
I’m quite familiar. It legally works, if you can prove that your data actually made it into the training set, you might be able to successfully sue them. That’s extremely unlikely though. If you can’t litigate a law, then it essentially doesn’t exist.
Besides, a researcher scraping websites isn’t going to take the time to filter out random pieces of data based on a link contained in the body. If you can show me a research paper or blog post or something where a process is described to sanitize the input data based on license, that would be pretty damn interesting. Maybe it’ll exist in the future?
Besides, the best way to opt-out of AI training is to enable site-wide flags, which mark the content therein as off limits. That would have the benefit of not only protecting you, but everyone else on the site. Lobbying your lemmy instance to enable that will get a lot more mileage than anything else you could do, because it’s an industry sanctioned way to accomplish what you want.
I’m quite familiar. It legally works, if you can prove that your data actually made it into the training set, you might be able to successfully sue them. That’s extremely unlikely though. If you can’t litigate a law, then it essentially doesn’t exist.
And what makes you think that can’t be done? You make it sound like because (you believe) it’s so hard to do you should have just not even bother trying, that seems really defeatist.
And like I said multiple times now, it’s a simple quick copy and paste, a ‘low-hanging fruit’ way of licensing/protecting a comment. If it works, great it works.
Besides, the best way to opt-out of AI training is to enable site-wide flags, which mark the content therein as off limits.
I have no control over the Lemmy servers, I only have control over my own comments that I post.
Also, the two options are not mutually exclusive.
because it’s an industry sanctioned way to accomplish what you want.
Again, both you and I know the history of the robots.txt file and how often and how well it’s honored, especially these days with the new frontier of AI modeling.
It would be best to do both, just to make sure you have coverage, so that if the robots.txt is not honored, at least the comment itself is still licensed.
It’s a stupid trend where people think they are somehow liberating their comments from being used in training by AI.
Spoiler alert, it doesn’t work. And even if it did, no one actually cares about your comment about (checks thread) people NOT playing a video game.
Well that’s dumb
Why?
What’s wrong with attaching a Creative Commons license to your comments?
Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)
Brought to you by Carl’s Jr
Just watch that movie again the other night. Good stuff.
Come on, don’t be afraid, answer the question. 😇
Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)
Lol, it just reminded me of that. I don’t care either way, good for you for standing up for shit. I just think anything I say will never have any impact on shit one way or the other. To me it’s like having a conversation on the street and then saying, don’t repeat what I said it’s trademarked, or something. If you’re posting art or actual creative content then fine, you have all reason to say so, but a comment on a discussion online… I’m not trying to copyright my shit takes on everyday speech. If you think for one second anyone cares or will care what we talk about here and now then go ahead, it doesn’t affect me one way or another, but I don’t see the need. That link will not stop anyone for using your words from bot training or whatever.
People don’t record your conversation on the street and sell that audio recording to a company to use to build/program their AI models, without compensating you.
We done?
Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)
What do you mean? I live in one of the most surveillanced places in the world, almost everyone I live around in every house I visit for work has literally paid for the privilege to record everything that happens near their house and is uploaded to computers for God knows what. It’s actually naive to think that not every single aspect of your life is being documented and transmitted into data at this very moment and that a simple link saying don’t do this is going to stop any of it. On top of that what do you mean are we done? I didn’t question anything about what you were doing I asked what the link was you answered me and then I said that was dumb we were done after I said it was dumb.
I don’t. But I do feel bad for you. I suggest trying to find some place where you can live more free, if that’s possible for you.
Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)
I’m not the OP, but I don’t feel like it would affect the process of harvesting your data or put some burden on the company doing it, since they have big bucks. But at the same time I’m not against it for it can lead to many humorous examples of AI putting this license after it’s replies after learning on your content. It would be the platinum tier absurdity and I’m all for it.
Unless the site has has an overriding license, it does indeed put burden on the AI trainers to exclude it.
However, will they do so unless legally forced to do so? Probably not. And they probably will treat it on a case-by-case basis.
Maybe. For me its a combination of very easy to add the license, hoping fellow coders who create the models will honor a Creative Commons license, and figuring that at some point in the future Congress will get around to passing laws about who owns content, how its labled, and how others can scrape such data. There’s already arguments going on between big corporations about paying to use the content to build the models, so I’m assuming that lobbying is being done right now in that category.
Though honestly I might just get bored some day and talk to my lawyer friend about what I would need to do to test this all out. Boredom is something you have at times, when retired.
lol! I never heard of this, that’s really funny actually.
Now that you mention it, in theory, we could all “black box” input into the models by having wacky stuff in our comments.
Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)
It’s superstitious clutter. Most websites require you to license the content you post to them without those restrictions, and AI training may not even involve copyright in the first place, meaning the license is moot. It just makes you look silly.
Does Lemmy? And is that legal, challenged in a court of law?
Maybe, but its also giving me allot of unexpected entertainment. 🤷
I tend to do what I think is right, and not how that makes me look to others.
Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)
“Lemmy” isn’t a website. I’m not even viewing this from a Lemmy instance, I’m on an mbin server. Do you understand how the Fediverse works? Your posts are being copied and transmitted to everyone regardless of what restrictions you claim you’re putting on them, if you don’t want them used that way then don’t post in the first place.
And if you’re finding this argument about your spam to be entertaining there’s a word for that. I likely shouldn’t be feeding that but this thread is already thoroughly derailed.
Allow me to play devil’s advocate here, but what you are saying about the fediverse seems to be completely compliant with that license. The content can be freely redistributed provided it is fine in a noncommercial way and with attribution (which is the case, right? We see the comment author).
Also, the argument “X is going to be done regardless” applies to all licenses (thinking about open source licenses). There is nothing that physically stops you from taking open source code and violate its license but if you get caught doing so, you are liable.
Maybe today there is nothing that would make anybody accountable about grabbing public data, training AI on it and reselling it, but if in the future regulations will change, it will be hard(er?) for those companies to claim that certain content was distributed freely etc., in cases where the author explicitly and unequivocally stated the terms.
There’s nothing preventing a Fediverse instance from showing ads, which would commercialize the comments on it.
Furthermore, they’re posting from Lemmy.world. Lemmy.world’s terms of service include this clause:
That goes even further than the usual boilerplate on sites like Reddit that say “you grant us license to do whatever we want with the stuff you post here.”
And besides all that, copyleft licensing (and copyright in general) likely has no relevance to AI training regardless. Copyleft licensing only has power because it grants permission to make copies of something. You can actually reject a copyleft license, if you want, it just means that you can’t make copies of the thing once you’ve rejected the license. But training an AI doesn’t require making copies of anything, it only requires analyzing a copy that you already have. You don’t need permission to analyze something that you can already legally read.
There are of course some interesting court cases currently wending their way through various legal systems, and all sorts of legislation pending in all sorts of different countries, but as things stand right now that CC link is just pointless spam that’s being held up as a totem against witchcraft.
Whats this ‘Freddyverse’ that you speak of? Is it like Costco?
I’ll be sure to petition the Lemmy web client people to remove the link button from their editor.
Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)
Again, I’m not even using a Lemmy instance. You’re clearly trolling at this point.
I am, and I’m the one using the editor.
I tend to live by the Golden Rule.
Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)
So strange how some people get really bent out of shape seeing it.
If someone is going to use my content to build their AI model and train their bots, then I want compensation for it.
Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)
It might seem silly to most but all it takes for something to become real is for the public to demand it. And if those in power won’t help, oust them.
At least this person demands something novel and positive for the user. What is fiction today can become reality tomorrow.
Seems harmless at worst and positive at best.
I mean the appropriate way to do that is to flag the site data as not approved for AI training, as shown here: https://www.pcmag.com/news/dont-want-google-to-use-your-website-for-ai-training-you-can-now-opt-out
It’s pretty much just a flag in the robots.txt and it has a whole lot more weight than linking CC in your post.
So if you want to actually make a difference, lobby your Lemmy instance to add this flag.
Oh neat I didn’t know about that.
Is there some Lemmy rule somewhere that I don’t know about that says I can’t attach a Creative Commons license to my comments?
Because everyone knows that’s always honored and obeyed, right?
Also, it’s a proprietary flag created by Google and only used by Google (per the article you linked).
Or do both.
Because users are the final owners of their own content, their own comments. Not Lemmy, not anyone else. They have the first responsibility of protecting their rights.
Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)
Oof yeah that was not the correct word at all. It would have been better to say effective.
You’re always free to do what you want of course!
You sure about that? 😇
The vibe I’m getting from you is kind of the opposite, as you’re the third person to give me a major hassle about them just within the 24-hour period.
I honestly wasn’t expecting the level of Spanish Inquisition that I’ve gotten over using them, it’s really fascinating actually. /queueMontyPython
Anyway, I would love to stop talking about this and derailing what the thread was actually supposed to be about.
Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)
Love your username! Is that a Deep Space Nine reference?
Edit: I’ve been ghosted by Rom. 😋Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)
I just think it’s silly that people think it actually works.
Besides, if AI really is powerful enough to make a splash in the world, wouldn’t you WANT it to contain your data? That would make it more favorable to your viewpoints.
I only want my data to be used to be used to generate dialog for gay furry porn.
Rom would be very disappointed with you.
Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)
Idk, sounds like some new holosuite programs that can earn him and I some latinum. I’m the idea person, he’s the engineer. Big picture thinking!
We’ll get our own moon soon enough.
Yes! You’ve restored my faith in
FerengityHumanity! Thank you.(And no, you can’t have any of my latinum.)
Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)
Are you a lawyer? Are you familiar with the Creative Commons license?
If not, please feel free to get back to us after you get your degree, and let us all know what the final word is on this.
Oh I would love that, if they paid me to use my content, under terms that I would agree for it to be used (betterment of Humankind, etc.).
Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)
I’m quite familiar. It legally works, if you can prove that your data actually made it into the training set, you might be able to successfully sue them. That’s extremely unlikely though. If you can’t litigate a law, then it essentially doesn’t exist.
Besides, a researcher scraping websites isn’t going to take the time to filter out random pieces of data based on a link contained in the body. If you can show me a research paper or blog post or something where a process is described to sanitize the input data based on license, that would be pretty damn interesting. Maybe it’ll exist in the future?
Besides, the best way to opt-out of AI training is to enable site-wide flags, which mark the content therein as off limits. That would have the benefit of not only protecting you, but everyone else on the site. Lobbying your lemmy instance to enable that will get a lot more mileage than anything else you could do, because it’s an industry sanctioned way to accomplish what you want.
And what makes you think that can’t be done? You make it sound like because (you believe) it’s so hard to do you should have just not even bother trying, that seems really defeatist.
And like I said multiple times now, it’s a simple quick copy and paste, a ‘low-hanging fruit’ way of licensing/protecting a comment. If it works, great it works.
I have no control over the Lemmy servers, I only have control over my own comments that I post.
Also, the two options are not mutually exclusive.
Again, both you and I know the history of the robots.txt file and how often and how well it’s honored, especially these days with the new frontier of AI modeling.
It would be best to do both, just to make sure you have coverage, so that if the robots.txt is not honored, at least the comment itself is still licensed.
Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)