3 ms·

IANAL... I think that depends on the application of "designed to simulate human intelligence" (Definition "b").. If that statement does not apply to the previo

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.
SkyBelow 3y ago
Before search engines existed, people curated lists of sites relevant to different topics. In that way, a search engine is an algorithm desired to simulate that part of human intelligence. >And then there's no severance clause/statement Probably this a point on why I'm a programmer and not a lawyer, but I never understood how these could work. If not having them means that one part of a license could invalidate the whole license, then how does having this change things? Something invalidating the rest of the license would also invalidate this part of the license, meaning it would be just as enforceable as other parts of the contract. If this one clause doesn't get invalidated, then why would the other clauses also be invalidated?

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.

SkyBelow 3y ago

Before search engines existed, people curated lists of sites relevant to different topics. In that way, a search engine is an algorithm desired to simulate that part of human intelligence. >And then there's no severance clause/statement Probably this a point on why I'm a programmer and not a lawyer, but I never understood how these could work. If not having them means that one part of a license could invalidate the whole license, then how does having this change things? Something invalidating the rest of the license would also invalidate this part of the license, meaning it would be just as enforceable as other parts of the contract. If this one clause doesn't get invalidated, then why would the other clauses also be invalidated?