7 ms·

Wouldn'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

Wouldn'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 ago
I'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 ago
  What does "software-generating" mean? Never heard that term before.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - teaearlgraycold 3y ago
    Something like GitHub Copilot presumably
    - withinboredom 3y ago
      Or code generation for APIs.
- ChadNauseam 3y ago
  Do you have the legal right to prevent that, if using it as part of the training set is considered fair use?
  - mminer237 3y ago
    If it's fair use, you don't need a license at all.
    - Filligree 3y ago
      That's correct, so attempts at forbidding it by license look a little silly to me.
- CaptainFever 3y ago
  Correct 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 ago
My first reaction as well, it's not clear if search algorithms fall under this definition of "AI"
ldoughty 3y ago
IANAL... 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 ago
  I 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 ago
Search 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 ago
I think no. Licenses can make non legally binding claims. It's similar to someone putting up a "no trespassing" sign on public property.

bigfishrunning 3y ago

I'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 ago
What does "software-generating" mean? Never heard that term before.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- teaearlgraycold 3y ago
  Something like GitHub Copilot presumably
  - withinboredom 3y ago
    Or code generation for APIs.
ChadNauseam 3y ago
Do you have the legal right to prevent that, if using it as part of the training set is considered fair use?
- mminer237 3y ago
  If it's fair use, you don't need a license at all.
  - Filligree 3y ago
    That's correct, so attempts at forbidding it by license look a little silly to me.
CaptainFever 3y ago
Correct 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 ago

My first reaction as well, it's not clear if search algorithms fall under this definition of "AI"

ldoughty 3y ago

IANAL... 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 ago
I 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 ago

Search 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 ago

I think no. Licenses can make non legally binding claims. It's similar to someone putting up a "no trespassing" sign on public property.