That license would require chatgpt to provide attribution every time it used training data of anyone there and also would require every output using that training data to be placed under the same license. This would actually legally prevent anything chatgpt created even in part using this training data from being closed source. Assuming they obviously aren’t planning on doing that this is massively shitting on the concept of licensing.
CC attribution doesn’t require you to necessarily have the credits immediately with the content, but it would result in one of the world’s longest web pages as it would need to have the name of the poster and a link to every single comment they used as training data, and stack overflow has roughly 60 million questions and answers combined.
Ethically and logically it seems like output based on training data is clearly derivative work. Legally I suspect AI will continue to be the new powerful tool that enables corporations to shit on and exploit the works of countless people.
They are not. A derivative would be a translation, or theater play, nowadays, a game, or movie. Even stuff set in the same universe.
Expanding the meaning of “derivative” so massively would mean that pretty much any piece of code ever written is a derivative of technical documentation and even textbooks.
So far, judges simply throw out these theories, without even debating them in court. Society would have to move a lot further to the right, still, before these ideas become realistic.
Maybe but I don’t think that is well tested legally yet. For instance, I’ve learned things from there, but when I share some knowledge I don’t attribute it to all the underlying sources of my knowledge. If, on the other hand, I shared a quote or copypasta from there I’d be compelled to do so I suppose.
I’m just not sure how neural networks will be treated in this regard. I assume they’ll conveniently claim that they can’t tie answers directly to underpinning training data.
That license would require chatgpt to provide attribution every time it used training data of anyone there and also would require every output using that training data to be placed under the same license. This would actually legally prevent anything chatgpt created even in part using this training data from being closed source. Assuming they obviously aren’t planning on doing that this is massively shitting on the concept of licensing.
CC attribution doesn’t require you to necessarily have the credits immediately with the content, but it would result in one of the world’s longest web pages as it would need to have the name of the poster and a link to every single comment they used as training data, and stack overflow has roughly 60 million questions and answers combined.
IF its outputs are considered derivative works.
Ethically and logically it seems like output based on training data is clearly derivative work. Legally I suspect AI will continue to be the new powerful tool that enables corporations to shit on and exploit the works of countless people.
They are not. A derivative would be a translation, or theater play, nowadays, a game, or movie. Even stuff set in the same universe.
Expanding the meaning of “derivative” so massively would mean that pretty much any piece of code ever written is a derivative of technical documentation and even textbooks.
So far, judges simply throw out these theories, without even debating them in court. Society would have to move a lot further to the right, still, before these ideas become realistic.
Maybe but I don’t think that is well tested legally yet. For instance, I’ve learned things from there, but when I share some knowledge I don’t attribute it to all the underlying sources of my knowledge. If, on the other hand, I shared a quote or copypasta from there I’d be compelled to do so I suppose.
I’m just not sure how neural networks will be treated in this regard. I assume they’ll conveniently claim that they can’t tie answers directly to underpinning training data.