• KingJalopy @lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            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.

            • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              13
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              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.

              We done?

              Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)

              • KingJalopy @lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                7 months ago

                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.

                  • KingJalopy @lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    7 months ago

                    I live in California, I can barely manage to be alive here, leaving America is not a reality for me. In fact, getting to California was actually a win for me. It’s not perfect but it’s better than where I was if not financially viable but it’s more where I want to be than where I was.

                    I have no angst against you or what you’re doing I just don’t really care. My comments will be used (and yours) regardless what I link to and if I didn’t want that happen I would just stop talking online all together rather than linking to something an ai bot won’t give 2 picoseconds of thought to.

      • andrew_bidlaw
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        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.

        • bastion@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          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.

        • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          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.

          Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)

      • FaceDeer@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        7 months ago

        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.

        • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          Most websites require you to license the content you post

          Does Lemmy? And is that legal, challenged in a court of law?

          It just makes you look silly.

          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)

          • FaceDeer@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            7 months ago

            “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.

            • sudneo@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              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.

              • FaceDeer@fedia.io
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                7 months ago

                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.

            • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              Do you understand how the Fediverse works?

              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.

              Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)