[amelius]

> As long as attribution and copyleft is kept for any derivative work created by AI.

That might get your name on a list between a thousand others. And people who want to be on that list can get there easily by starting a (fake) GitHub repo.

In other words, being on the acknowledgement list stops being meaningful.

[jraph]

I was a bit tongue in cheek on this part of my comment, because that's the idea.

You are essentially saying that respecting the license I chose is impractical.

In other words, that my work cannot be used in such a setting.

So, either AIs need to stop being trained so liberally, or it becomes clear that copyright does not apply when used as training set. I appreciate that other people have different opinion on this, but I pretty much don't want my work to be used like this, and having a variant of licenses to cover this would be concerning.

The fight about this is not over, hence the hope I'm expressing.

[HideousKojima]

It's not the acknowledgement list he's talking about, but the code that the AI spits out being GPL'd as well.

[jraph]

But it's also the acknowledgement list, and this part is not specific to the GPL, it also applies to BSD, MIT and all the other licenses which include an attribution clause, which is most of them.

If we require AIs to respect licenses of work in their training set, it's a mess, really. It might actually be unsolvable because licenses are not all compatible with each others.

[jakelazaroff]

I don’t really see why that’s a mess. There are two easy solutions I can think of right off the bat:

- Don’t train AI on work with incompatible licenses

- Don’t train AI on copyrighted work at all