Except gen AI didn’t exist when those people decided on their license. And besides which, it’s very difficult to specify “free to use, except in ways that undermine free access” in a license.
The responsibility is on the copyright holder to use a license they actually understand.
If you license your work with, say, the BSD 0 Clause, you are very explicitly giving away your right to dictate how other people use your work. Don’t be angry if people do so in ways you don’t like.
This specifically talks about AI data scrapers being an issue, and some general issues that are frankly not exclusive to open access info.
Exploitative companies are always a problem, whether it’s AI or not. But someone who uses the Wikipedia text torrents as a dataset isn’t doing anything of what is described in that article for example.
Except gen AI didn’t exist when those people decided on their license. And besides which, it’s very difficult to specify “free to use, except in ways that undermine free access” in a license.
The responsibility is on the copyright holder to use a license they actually understand.
If you license your work with, say, the BSD 0 Clause, you are very explicitly giving away your right to dictate how other people use your work. Don’t be angry if people do so in ways you don’t like.
How does a model that is trained on an open dataset undermine free access? The dataset is still accessible no?
“Wait, not like that”: Free and open access in the age of generative AI
This specifically talks about AI data scrapers being an issue, and some general issues that are frankly not exclusive to open access info.
Exploitative companies are always a problem, whether it’s AI or not. But someone who uses the Wikipedia text torrents as a dataset isn’t doing anything of what is described in that article for example.