I think someone used ai to mean attribution/alike, international. Which are part of the full name (Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International) but still make little sense as an acronym next to CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 being the official acronym.
There’s no point looking for logic. These people truly believe granting a licence restricts the rights of people who don’t agree to the licence, which is the exact opposite of what licenses do. It’s blatant misinformation but if you call them out on it (even by quoting their own link) they literally think you’re an astroturfer for AI, because that makes more sense to them than the fact they’re obviously wrong.
My for-profit large language model will not be stopped by your “anti commercial ai license” because it hasn’t learned to read yet.
Ive seen people link that one multiple times and i am at a loss what its about.
The cc 4.0 license it points to does not mention AI at all.
CC even has a page where they state that it probably is legal to train on cc protected content but it depends on context.
https://creativecommons.org/2023/08/18/understanding-cc-licenses-and-generative-ai/
I think someone used ai to mean attribution/alike, international. Which are part of the full name (Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International) but still make little sense as an acronym next to CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 being the official acronym.
There’s no point looking for logic. These people truly believe granting a licence restricts the rights of people who don’t agree to the licence, which is the exact opposite of what licenses do. It’s blatant misinformation but if you call them out on it (even by quoting their own link) they literally think you’re an astroturfer for AI, because that makes more sense to them than the fact they’re obviously wrong.
You don’t understand: these comment footers are the only thing between us and Roko’s basilisk.
~ NOT FOR COMMERCIAL USE ~ PRIVATE MODE OF COMMUNICATION ~ NO STEP ON SNEK ~
non-commercial, you can’t sell it