8 ms·
The I Hate AI License
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- marcinzm 3y agoWouldn't this this block most search engines from indexing the content? I'm also curious if the usual way of reading web content includes an "AI" somewhere in the path (ie: browser, upscaling, fraud filtering, video compression, CDN, etc.) between the server and the eyeball.
- bigfishrunning 3y agoI'd prefer something like "LGPL but with the additional provision that the source code for this software may not be used as part of the training set of a software-generating neural network"
- marcinzm 3y agoWhat does "software-generating" mean? Never heard that term before.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- teaearlgraycold 3y agoSomething like GitHub Copilot presumably
- withinboredom 3y agoOr code generation for APIs.
- ChadNauseam 3y agoDo you have the legal right to prevent that, if using it as part of the training set is considered fair use?
- CaptainFever 3y agoCorrect me if I'm wrong but doesn't LGPL restrict you from adding restrictions to the license? Like you can't call it LGPL or something.
- cantSpellSober 3y agoMy first reaction as well, it's not clear if search algorithms fall under this definition of "AI"
- ldoughty 3y agoIANAL... I think that depends on the application of "designed to simulate human intelligence" (Definition "b").. If that statement does not apply to the previously mentioned "algorithms" in the definition, I think it's safe for most (current) search engines. I do believe the license would prohibit you from passing this through an intermediate AI system, as there's no exceptions or allowance. I imagine there would be a fight in various laws/constitutions saying that the license is illegal/not allowed/etc in most places as it would not support accessibility (e.g. AI based text-to-speech for those that need it)... And then there's no severance clause/statement, which is technically in the CC licenses (legal version), to protect the rest of the license should one part be found invalid.. so ultimately the whole license is probably invalid for most countries since the limitation will almost certainly (eventually) violate someones rights to read the public information (which will probably have AI incorporation at some point, e.g. text-to-speech with automatic summarization, searching by context, spelling corrections, perhaps translations, etc.)
- ldoughty 3y agoI think a safer language for anti-AI training license would be a CC-based license with a "may not be used in AI training sets or testing" addition... This would (if they cared) prevent the AI company from using the data... but not tools used by end users (which could actually be end users of that AI company)... which is, I think, a safer basis for what the IHAIL license is aiming for
- tavavex 3y ago> I think that depends on the application of "designed to simulate human intelligence" (Definition "b").. If that statement does not apply to the previously mentioned "algorithms" in the definition, I think it's safe for most (current) search engines. But then, what does it apply to? Are LLMs "designed to simulate human intelligence"? What about image generators? Like, their outputs can be similar to what "human intelligence" might produce, but if we're talking intent at the design level, I'm doubtful that any of their developers sat down with the thought of "let's replicate a human". > I imagine there would be a fight in various laws/constitutions saying that the license is illegal/not allowed/etc in most places as it would not support accessibility (e.g. AI based text-to-speech for those that need it)... Either this or "right to public info" you mention in the next paragraph are smaller issues in comparison to asking whether they can even make these clauses. If AI use isn't found to be automatically in violation of copyright just through mere inclusion in a dataset, then this license will be meaningless because you can't sign away law in a license.
- altairprime 3y agoSearch engines and machine language training companies both claim that scraping and indexing is fair use, which theoretically sets aside any copyright claim that could wield this license against them. However, the ML claim is not yet supported by directly applicable legal precedent. (I am not your lawyer, this is not legal advice.)
- seadan83 3y agoI think no. Licenses can make non legally binding claims. It's similar to someone putting up a "no trespassing" sign on public property.
- satvikpendem 3y agoIf AI is ruled as fair use, no license will stop it, which it likely is to be, notwithstanding the NY Times lawsuit against OpenAI alleging that ChatGPT can reproduce articles wholesale.
- mobiuscog 3y agoIf it is not ruled fair use, or similar, all non-copyright countries are going to advance far faster. Whilst there are many ethical discussions to have, this will come down to the simple fact of there being people who will take the data anyway and thus have the advantage in datasets, assuming that matters.
- dleeftink 3y agoI think the ideal of more data == faster advancements may turn out to be a false equivalency. Similar to prior innovations, a healthy headcount, headstart and steady R&D funding will more likely make a difference. Besides, rather than vacuuming up exisiting data, future resources might be better spent on creating bespoke datasets with user consent and content licensing baked in from the start.
- kaibee 3y ago> Besides, rather than vacuuming up exisiting data future resources might be better spent on creating bespoke datasets with user consent and content licensing baked in from the start. Not mutually exclusive.
- dleeftink 3y agoProbably not, but I think it is worthwhile to see if models can achieve sota with less, and if not, have individuals clearly onboard and informed of their data contributions. We have conducted large statistical surveys in the past, so I see little reason why these and other established data collection practices could not be updated and utilised for refining contemporary models.
- 3y ago
- andy99 3y agoI'm not a lawyer but I know there are limits on what can be enforced through a license that's granted under copyright. Not to mention whatever fair use rights one has. So I don't know how enforceable it would be.
- richardwhiuk 3y agoLikely, either, copyright covers use in LLM, or, it doesn't. So either the license is unnecessary, or irrelevant.
- speedgoose 3y ago> Expressing disapproval of the use of AI through open licenses. Those licenses aren’t very open. Like the Creative Commons non commercial licenses.
- LordDragonfang 3y agoI mean, while CC-NC isn't fully "open" by software nerd standards, it's still very open by general copyright standards.
- andy99 3y agoI think telling someone how they can use something is pretty much the most egregious restriction possible, other than not actually sharing it. Limiting uses is certainly enough to firmly disqualify a license from being open.
- LordDragonfang 3y agoTalking about anything to do with licensing with free software folks is extremely frustrating because of statements like this. First off, telling someone how they can use something is what a license is. Even the GPL is defined in those terms, and moreover, the GPL tells you how you can use the code it protects! ("If you use this code, you must release the source" is functionally as much of a constraint as "if you use this work, it can't be for profit", the difference is ideological, not categorical) The only function of bringing that up is making weird black-and-white absolutist arguments where "any license which does not grant every possible use is not open" arguments. That just doesn't match with reality - all variants of CC are much more open than standard copyright. Also, an extremely important point that is often overlooked in these arguments: your statement is actually false, since it does not tell someone how they can use a work, only how they can use it under that license. In other words, if you want to profit off of someone else's work, you're still free to contact the author and receive license to do so.
- CaptainFever 3y ago
- golergka 3y ago> "AI" refers to any form of Artificial Intelligence, including machine learning algorithms, neural networks, deep learning models, and other technologies designed to simulate human intelligence. So, this license bans any use of screen readers and renders the content completely unavailable to people who rely on them.
- johnisgood 3y ago"other technologies designed to simulate human intelligence" is really vague, to be honest. That said, this includes computer vision (image recognition, object detection, and facial recognition), speech recognition (accessibility).
- LordDragonfang 3y agoNot by itself, but in combination with this line, maybe (for TTS that incorporates some sort of model for pronunciation): > You may not use, adapt, modify, or process the Licensed Content in any way with AI technologies. This includes but is not limited to [...], utilizing AI tools...
- Topfi 3y ago> This content is fully generated by AI because fuck AI. Maybe this is a language barrier, but what is meant by this sentence in particular? Why "generate with AI" (i.e. an LLM, most certainly not any form of "AI") if the author dislikes that so much? Wouldn't such a deeply held stance motivate someone to more heavily rely on consulting with experts in the fields of licensing and the current state of models rather than outsourcing such a project in its entirety to an LLM? In general, I can understand using an LLM for an initial draft when working on a project, then going over the output with some actual input from various expert sources, though not if one has major objections to the use and existence of LLMs in general. That just seems self-defeating. Or am I misunderstanding something?
- nanowell 3y agoI think author was thinking that by using AI model to roast itself it would be an ultimate win in their book, the AI kills itself.
- Topfi 3y agoBut for any LLM they may have used to produce this, it was most likely trained on various sources in just the manner they are protesting. Can you truly protest something by engaging in just the thing you are protesting? Trying to keep this within the HN space, the Windows Refund day organizers didn't utilize Microsoft software products when planning their protest by claiming they'd "use their own weapons against them", that'd only hurt their cause.
- philomath_mn 3y agoI think the author is trying to be a bit flippant by using the AI against itself
- Trombone12 3y agoLLM's are definitely the sort of thing people in general mean when they say "AI". The act of using "an AI" to generate a license restricting the use of AI can have many motivations, but an obvious one is the simple "use their own weapons against them" principle.
- ryankrage77 3y agoThere's a few comments (correctly) pointing out the massive flaws in this license, both legally and philosophically. Those flaws probably exist because the text was written by AI, per the footer - "This content is fully generated by AI because fuck AI."
- cantSpellSober 3y agoSo this project would presumably violate its own license if the AI used to generate it was trained on content using the license?
- teaearlgraycold 3y agoWhat an incredibly stupid work to put online. Or maybe I'm the fool and this is meant to troll me?
- asylteltine 3y agoThis seems to be a troll yes. I use a variation of Creative Commons minus commercial allowances and also put a statement banning using my code for training too. It’s still “open source” by the way!
- CaptainFever 3y agoIt doesn't meet the standard for Free Cultural Work, though: https://creativecommons.org/public-domain/freeworks/ https://creativecommons.org/public-domain/freeworks/
- haswell 3y agoIt’s generating what are arguably important discussions at a time when no one really knows where all of this is going. I wouldn’t frame this as stupid, or even trolling. An art project maybe, and one that is doing its job seemingly pretty well.
- 3y ago
- paradite 3y agoSince we are taking about license which should be accurate and clear in terms of definitions, "AI" might not be the right word to use. Broadly speaking, AI encompasses much more than machine learning or deep learning. Wikipedia gives a good view of the goals and tools involved in AI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence For example, classic search algorithms like BFS and DFS are in fact considered "AI" in AI textbooks, academia and certain industries like games. If you expand the definition of AI a bit more to include if else statements, then every modern program is probably an AI as well. And rightly so if we view them from the lens of 1990s. So maybe you want to say machine learning to be more specific.
- nanowell 3y agoI am interested to see how copyright will stop companies from using copyrighted context pretraining AI model, then generating synthetic data by refining input data thus making a much stronger and not so verbatim data. It's illegal to use copyrighted material this way, but detection seems difficult. I really doubt they could prove that such model was created using copyright work, unless someone leaks this information.
- sarchertech 3y agoThat’s what discovery is for.
- nashashmi 3y agoCopyleft-for-AI license will work better here. A License for analysis, transformation, and imitation. This should generally be governed by fair use. Of course the other territory we are coming upon is information re use. No existing restrictions are in place. Therefore, rewriting news articles are legal.
- jimmaswell 3y agoIt's sad seeing peers become luddites over AI. It's never been the right side of history to be on.
- asylteltine 3y agoIt’s not a big ask to force so called “””ai””” companies to you know, pay for the use of content. If a human did what models are doing, it would be considered plagiarism at best. It’s not okay. They can pay a license if they want to profit off my content.
- tavavex 3y ago> If a human did what models are doing, it would be considered plagiarism at best. They wouldn't, and that's the issue. If I looked at a thousand drawings done in a certain, specific style and used my findings to make my own unique product in that same style, you'd be hard-pressed to find any reasonable people who'd accuse me of plagiarism. Not to mention that this flavor of "profiting" is something we've been seemingly fine with until specifically generative AI came about. Google profits off of your content directly by using their machine learning algorithms to scrape your website and use its contents in search results, next to their ads. It was found legal, so why should generative AI pay a fee?
- chlorion 3y agoIf people who reverse engineer things like Windows APIs can be sued simply because they have viewed leaked Windows source code and may implement something similar to it, on accident, I think "AI" should be held to the same standard. Clean room reverse engineering is a thing that exists exactly for this reason but it doesn't seem to apply to "AI". Also "AI" is not a human, and there is no proof that it "learns like humans". or that it should be even compared to humans in any way, so none of this matters anyways.
- tavavex 3y ago> If people who reverse engineer things like Windows APIs can be sued simply because they have viewed leaked Windows source code and may implement something similar to it, on accident, I think "AI" should be held to the same standard. It already is. The Windows source code is proprietary data, having unauthorized access to it is already disallowed. You already can't legally use proprietary or pirated data in AI training for the same reasons why you can't use it anywhere else. But this conversation is about the use of publicly posted information that's already out on the internet. It's the equivalent of Microsoft openly publishing the MS-DOS source code and then suing people for viewing it and potentially getting ideas from it. > Also "AI" is not a human, and there is no proof that it "learns like humans". or that it should be even compared to humans in any way, so none of this matters anyways. It makes absolutely no sense that a ruling would apply to automation and not humans. If I can legally do a thing myself, can you come up with an argument why I can't build a machine that does that thing for me? The only exception that I can think of is cases where human health and safety is at stake, which is an edge case that doesn't apply to generating text or images.
- asylteltine 3y agoI love this thank you. Fuck so called “AI” and their theft of content. I really hope with all my heart the New York Times gets a big win. It’s simply not okay to blatantly use data you do not own to train your models. This is simply theft.
- FridgeSeal 3y agoDon’t say it too loud, the AI maximalists will hear, they’ll sit outside your window and scream “umm akshually it’s fair use ok”.
- kps 3y agoConversely, is there any ‘well-known’ statement that explicitly permits using a work for ml training, analogous to human learning, without permitting wholesale copying? (I've looked casually and not seen one, but I'm not well-read in either domain.)
- CaptainFever 3y agoLike a sort of "derivatives only" license?
- kps 3y agoMore or less. Some books have as part of their copyright boilerplate a statement that corresponds to (some countries') fair use principles, e.g. “… except short excerpts for the purposes of review.” (I know someone with hundreds of thousands of words on the web who does want their work to be ‘learned’ by the major LLMs, in the same sense that they want their work indexed by search engines, even if that turns out not to be considered fair use in their jurisdiction, but does not want it copied wholesale.)
- CaptainFever 3y agoI think that makes sense. Wholesale copies are still restricted for purposes of revenue, but otherwise derivatives and training can be done to benefit society (since it doesn't impact the revenue of the original work, of which you still need to purchase a copy).
- PeterisP 3y agoA license like this can deny the copyright owners permission in certain cases. However, this applies only to the things for which copyright law asserts that the copyright owner has exclusive rights to to so and their permission or license is required. For example, if applying some AI-enabled tool to process the data doesn't require permission of the copyright owner (using the copyrighted work without creating copies or derivative works generally doesn't, except in the scenarios explicitly listed in law), then it doesn't matter if the license doesn't permit that, because the user doesn't need to agree to the license.
- gampleman 3y agoOk, there’s a lot of criticism in the comments, but I think the intent here is quite clear. How would you phrase this better, in order to prohibit use in n “AI” without effectively banning normal uses? (Putting aside issues like fair use and enforceability)
- FridgeSeal 3y agoIt is completely on-brand for HN commenters to go down a rabbit hole nitpicking some minor quibble and missing/ignoring the overall point completely.
- dartos 3y agoActually the behavior of the users of hn don’t constitute the brand itself. Idk if hn really has a “brand” per se, since it’s just a yconbinator subdomain.
- Topfi 3y ago> Ok, there’s a lot of criticism in the comments, but I think the intent here is quite clear. I am not 100% convinced of that, considering we have an almost even split in commentators who believe this to be a serious effort in creating a license and those genuienly taking this to be a more satirical form of joke protest, pointing out the deficiencies of LLMs. Do you think the intent was to create a serious license or poke at LLM deficiencies? I started with the former but have now read the latter so much I am starting to drift... > How would you phrase this better, in order to prohibit use in n “AI” without effectively banning normal uses? If we go with this being a serious effort and I had faith in this being a problem that could be addressed via a license, I'd start with researching what I am actually trying to restrict. Copyright law, other licenses with goals of enforcing specific behavior such as GPL and their history, how LLMs are trained and whether this may count as transformative or even fair-use and what the implications of the latter would be if that were to be found to be the case by courts, why content has historically been "crawlable" by search engines and other third-parties, etc. Look at the implications of what I am actually trying to accomplish here and how to go about it. Then, as a cornerstone of my efforts, explain in detail what the cut-off is for "technologies designed to simulate human intelligence" (what is intelligence, what simulates intelligence, etc.) and, just to name one of the numerous examples, why search engine crawlers would not be covered by that. Or, alternatively, state outright that those would and should be restricted from using any content covered under this license too, and lay out to any potential user what that may mean for them, again keeping in mind the historic background of why website owners have allowed crawlers in the first place. On top of that, for such an effort as creating a license designed to narrowly restrict very specific use cases, I'd definitely contact and consult with at least a few professionals in the legal, copyright and research spaces. If you approach such a project with a well-thought-out concept and concrete questions to flesh it out, there tends to be a lot of amazing, concrete and highly professional support you can get contacting academia, in my experience. They'll also highlight any aspects that require additional focus and help you address questions before they arise. I do, however, believe that if the creator of this site had approached some experts with the concept they ended up publishing, they'd quickly be told that restricting the training of "AI" without also disallowing crawling by search engines, etc. in the manner they described is akin to the many decades-long and persistent attempts at manifesting encryption that includes a backdoor, only accessible by "good guys," without harming privacy or safety for the end user. Very much considered somewhere between incredibly challenging and landing a person on the sun. Due to this, I feel that anyone whose solution is such a poorly thought-out one as these two licenses is either not serious in their efforts or so poorly informed on the topic and its complexities that their efforts won't yield anything positive, not even sparking valuable debate, as such poor ideas always poison discussions, detracting from real solutions. To stick with the encryption analogy, the continued attempt by some lawmakers to engineer a magical safe black box encryption with LEO-backdoor takes valuable time and resources, as well as public attention, away from actually addressing real ways of fighting those very crimes that are often mentioned when trying to justify weakening encryption for the wider public. > (Putting aside issues like fair use and enforceability) I also very much believe any serious discussion can never put these two issues aside. Again, to stay with my encryption analogy, that's like putting "privacy and due process" aside. Any discussion that, from the outset, necessitates ignoring such crucial aspects cannot yield fruitful results.
- lijok 3y agoWould it not make more sense for a "fuck AI" license to stipulate that the content can only be used to train a model if the model is made publicly available under an open license?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- PaulHoule 3y ago… there is nothing that makes me feel that a lot of people live life looking in the rear view mirror more than this one. This blogger has gone on for years about how unfair the Google economy is http://www.seobook.com/blog http://www.seobook.com/blog It’s like their horses got out 10 years ago and long got caught and taken to the glue factory and they didn’t notice until two magical letters were introduced and now it is fashionable to complain.
- rideontime 3y agoMore like somebody stole their horses ten years ago and people are finally noticing.
- tavavex 3y agoTo me this seems like another "protest piece" for people that really hate AI, rather than something useful. It's like one of those "No to AI art" images that people spammed on websites hosting any AI-generated content. It's truly baffling how generative AI in particular created an opposition that despises it so much, in comparison to the pushback new technologies got in the past.
- isk517 3y agoProbably because it is threatening not just one but many different professions at the same time, all of whom believed that it was truly impossible for them to be replaced by a machine. For the record I am not rooting for anyone to be replaced.
- CaptainFever 3y agoYeah, essentially white collar workers experiencing automation just like everybody else. It's not a new problem, but it affects a different class.
- paxys 3y ago"Don't write your own license" is as critical a piece of advice in software as "don't roll your own crypto library". There are plenty of licenses written by actual lawyers that have stood the test of time and will likely meet your needs. Use one of those.
- nmca 3y agoIt is pretty funny that this makes use of AI. Even the haters accept the mundane utility.
- lee101101 3y ago[dead]