zlacker

I really think there's likely to be gigantic class action lawsuits in the near future, and I support them. People did not consent for their data and work to be used in this way. In many cases people have already demonstrated using custom tailored prompts that these models have been trained on copyrighted works that are not public domain.

>>api+(OP)
Consent isn't required if they're making their work available for public viewing.

>>api+(OP)
It's already explicitly legal to train AI using copyrighted data in many countries. You can ignore opt-outs too, especially if you're training AI for non-commercial purposes. Search up TDM exceptions.

>>archon+w
For VIEWING. This is like blatantly taking your gpl licensed code and using it for commercial purposes

>>gransh+Ik
A thing that can be viewed can be learned from.

I can't copy your GPL code. I might be able to write my own code that does the same thing.

I'm going to defend this statement in advance. A lot of software developers white knight more than they strictly have to; they claim that learning from GPL code unavoidably results in infringing reproduction of that code.

Courts, however, apply a test [1], in an attempt to determine the degree to which the idea is separable from the expression of that idea. Copyright protects particular expression, not idea, and in the case that the idea cannot be separated from the expression, the expression cannot be copyrighted. So either I'm able to produce a non-infringing expression of the idea, or the expression cannot be copyrighted, and the GPL license is redundant.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction-Filtration-Compari...