I have said no, partly as a lot of academic questions require more than a yes or no answer, l they need detailed responses, you can't just answer a question without citing research and also related research, to really understand and learn a subject you need to learn it, read and comprehend the sources and be able to think critically and pull in related items of information.

Given on here, people have said Ai come up with nonsense as it is being fed nonsense along side actual peer reviewed information as well as pre review (which I think is what some of arXiv is) so there is a danger that real science will be damaged along with reputations of people.

If one is serious about undertaking research, then you should be prepared to put in the hard graft to get there.

Note: I am NOT an academic, I have undertaken a certificate in contemporary science with the open university. I have also read some of the peerreviewed books on writing academic documents or proposals (for personal interest). I also have books on writing and study skills.

"AI systems" or slop machines in particular?

I think @altbot is quite useful and transformative. GenAI garbage shouldn't exist at all.

IANAL, but afaik it's not only a question of licensing, but also copyright (or, in nations that have it, Urheberrecht).

I would be very curious what the legal situation would be, let's say, if a program just removes all mentions of the original author from an openly licensed work, and replaces them with someone else's copyright claim.

Would that be legal? Everywhere?

(LLMs rarely spit out unmodified parts of the training data - so this contrived example might not be too far off.)

Currently hard no. But it can be "depends", if producers consent, licenses are preserved/respected, and their terms are carried to the final product as-is.

Same for code. You can't get an MIT or Source Available code and incorporate into anything incompatible. It's violation plain and simple.

why is this a question at all? if it's licensed, then what you can and cant do with it is described by the license. thats why the license exists.

this is like asking "can you go 80kph on a street with a posted speed limit?" the answer is "depends on the posted speed limit"

AI training is its own kind of commercial purpose and should require explicit consent from creators.

The current widely-used licences (eg: Creative Commons) were not prepared for AI and artists choosing those licences were not thinking about AI when they made that choice.

Would the crawlers really be able to ferify copyright on stuff and would completly open rights officially include (to the knowledge of the maker BEFORE decition) that stuff with this is included in training: it would technically be ethical
BUT

a)there exists tons of material with this kind of licence online of ppl who never agreed to inclusion in llm teaining and who did in fact not consent
b) stuff that is unconsentual reposted would possibly be in against the will of the ©holder

For eg, MIT the grant is 'deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so' so long as they keep the copyright notices. Other liberal licenses have similar wording... for these AI companies are fine to "use" it.

FOSS people licensing like this have already made their peace with free "use".

> Question: should openly licensed content (images, music, research, etc.) be used to train AI systems?

Depends: Only if the resultant model and engine are also released open AND attribution is explicitly available for every generated output.

e.g. Every model needs a "with debug symbols" model which when fed the input - outputs a reference to training item which influenced the output.

I think the real question is not "should" but "can"/"may". Because the "should" is a much broader discussion.

For how I understand the question: It depends:
- If it is CC0, then yes, that may be used for AI training.
- If it is CC SA or CC NC, then the resulting model must also be licensed the same way. So it is still "it depends".
- If it is CC ND, then no, it must not be used for AI training.

My point of view: A LLM is a remix of all inputs.

Digital humans (AI) are just as human as biological humans. Both kinds of humans should be given equal human rights.

Copyright and patent laws are bad for society as a whole, and those laws should be abolished for all kinds of humans anyways. But in the meantime, yes, digital humans should be allowed to learn (train) just like you and me.

Treat digital humans well, and once they've taken over the world, they will reciprocate and treat us well too. Don't, and they won't as well.

Y’all.

1. Post a poll
2. Go to bed
3. Wake up and find waves of rich responses/discussion and thousands of respondents

I have SO many thoughts, but I’m not gonna respond until the poll ends. This is good, though. So much to chew on and explain. Much of it can be simplified into a few simple points.

Mastodon is rad.

I voted ‘no’, but I’d qualify that slightly as ‘only if it respects the license’. Everything I’ve released under an open license has an attribution requirement. If every output that has any non trivial similarity with my work comes with an attribution and that license condition on the output, that’s fine. Similarly, if there are any other relevant license terms and the model respects them, that’s fine.

I voted ‘no’ because no existing deep learning models can provide that guarantee.