I used to be the Security Team Lead for Web Applications at one of the largest government data centers in the world but now I do mostly "source available" security mainly focusing on BSD. I'm on GitHub but I run a self-hosted Gogs (which gitea came from) git repo at Quadhelion Engineering Dev.
Well, on that server I tried to deny AI with Suricata, robots.txt, "NO AI" Licenses, Human Intelligence (HI) License links in the software, "NO AI" comments in posts everywhere on the Internet where my software was posted. Here is what I found today after having correlated all my logs of git clones or scrapes and traced them all back to IP/Company/Server.
Formerly having been loathe to even give my thinking pattern to a potential enemy I asked Perplexity AI questions specifically about BSD security, a very niche topic. Although there is a huge data pool here in general over many decades, my type of software is pretty unique, is buried as it does not come up on a GitHub search for BSD Security for two pages which is all most users will click, is very recent comparitively to the "dead pool" of old knowledge, and is fairly well recieved, yet not generally popular so GitHub Traffic Analysis is very useful.
The traceback and AI result analysis shows the following:
- GitHub cloning vs visitor activity in the Traffic tab DOES NOT MATCH any useful pattern for me the Engineer. Likelyhood of AI training rough estimate of my own repositories: 60% of clones are AI/Automata
- GitHub README.md is not licensable material and is a public document able to be trained on no matter what the software license, copyright, statements, or any technical measures used to dissuade/defeat it. a. I'm trying to see if tracking down whether any README.md no matter what the context is trainable; is a solvable engineering project considering my life constraints.
- Plagarisation of technical writing: Probable
- Theft of programming "snippets" or perhaps "single lines of code" and overall logic design pattern for that solution: Probable
- Supremely interesting choice of datasets used vs available, in summary use, but also checking for validation against other software and weighted upon reputation factors with "Coq" like proofing, GitHub "Stars", Employer History?
- Even though I can see my own writing and formatting right out of my README.md the citation was to "Phoronix Forum" but that isn't true. That's like saying your post is "Tick Tock" said. I wrote that, a real flesh and blood human being took comparitvely massive amounts of time to do that. My birthname is there in the post 2 times [EDIT: post signature with my name no longer? Name not in "about" either hmm], in the repo, in the comments, all over the Internet.
[EDIT continued] Did it choose the Phoronix vector to that information because it was less attributable? It found my other repos in other ways. My Phoronix handle is the same name as GitHub username, where my handl is my name, easily inferable in any, as well as a biography link with my fullname in the about.[EDIT cont end]
You should test this out for yourself as I'm not going to take days or a week making a great presentation of a technical case. Check your own niche code, a specific code question of application, or make a mock repo with super niche stuff with lots of code in the README.md and then check it against AI every day until you see it.
P.S. I pulled up TabNine and tried to write Ruby so complicated and magically mashed, AI could offer me nothing, just as an AI obsucation/smartness test. You should try something similar to see what results you get.
"The world seeing [their] work" is not equal to "Some random company selling access to their regurgitated content, used without permission after explicitly attempting to block it".
LLMs and image generators - that weren't trained on content that is wholly owned by the group creating the model - is theft.
Not saying LLMs and image generators are innately thievery. It's like the whole "illegal
mp3" argument.mp3sare just files with compressed audio. If they contain copyrighted work, and obtained illegitimately, THEN their thievery. Same with content generators.stealing removes something. copying makes more of it. it's not theft
The MPAA and music industry would beg to differ. As would the US courts, as well as any court in a country we share copyright agreements with.
Consider that if a movie uses a scene from another movie without permission, or a music producer uses a melody without permission, or either of them use too much of an existing song without permission, everyone sues everyone else, and they win.
Consider also that if a large corporation uses an individual's content without permission, we have documented cases of the individual suing, and winning (or settling).
Some other facts to consider;
mp3file is not inherently illegal. Nor is atorrentfile/tracker/download.mp3file contains audio you don't own the rights to, it is illegal, same for thetorrentyou used to download/distribute it. In the eyes of the law, it's theft.In the
mp3example, its largely an individual stealing from a large company. On the Internet, this is frequently cheered as the user "sticking it to the man" (unless, of course, you're an indie creator who can't support yourself because everyone's downloading your content for free). Discussions regarding the morality of this have been had - and will be had - for a long time, but it's legality is a settled matter: It's not legal.In the case of "AI" models, its large companies stealing from a huge number of individuals who have no support or established recourse.
You're suggesting that it's fine because, essentially, the creators haven't lost anything. This makes it extremely clear to me that you've never attempted to support yourself as a creator (and I suspect you haven't created anything of meaning in the public domain either).
I guess what it comes down to is this; If creators can be stolen from without consequence, what incentive does anyone have to create anything? Are you going to work your 40-60 hours a week, then come home and work another 20-40 hours to create something for no personal benefit other than the act of creation? Truely, some people will. Most wont.
people made art, music, and stories long before copyright
this doesn't address what I said at all.
The first sentence directly addresses your comment "it's not theft" with "the law says it is".
The rest of the post attempts to explain why it is so and some of the moral or ethical discussions surrounding some examples.
the law does not say it is theft.
Copyright violations ≠ conversion. Those are two completely different sets of laws. If you're going to argue that legal definitions back you up, at least make sure you know what they are?