>>>>> "Russ" == Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> writes:
Russ> To add to this, I'm fairly sure that the companies that are
Russ> training AI models on, say, every piece of text they can find
Russ> on the Internet, or all public GitHub repositories, are going
Russ> to explicitly argue that doing so is fair use of the training
Russ> material. If that argument prevails in court, or in
Russ> legislatures, it will not be possible to write a free software
Russ> license to prevent this, since the point of fair use is that
Russ> copyright law does not apply to that usage and therefore no
Russ> copyright license can prohibit it.
Russ, I'm sure you are aware, but things get very interesting if the
input to AI training is not fair use.
In particular, if Github copilot is a derivative work of everything fed
to it (including all the copylefted works), that gets kind of awkward
for Microsoft.
Perhaps the Github user agreement grants permission for every copyright
holder who has a Github account.
But for everyone else, things could be very interesting.
Unfortunately, if there is not some sort of fair use or sui generis
solution, things like Chat GPT would be impossible because of copyright.
That will create significant energy on the legal front to find a
solution that does not involve negotiating with each right holder
individually.
The AI models are useful after all.
And then there's GDPR and privacy concerns of training data.
If I were a European, I'd definitely be very interested in filing a
subject access request to learn what OpenAI knows about me.
--Sam
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature