I've contributed a fair bit to free content (CC licenses) & open source projects over the years.
Personally, I want "my" stuff to be used to make AI models better. I use open licenses precisely _because_ I want people to come up with interesting & hopefully beneficial new uses.
I understand why lots of folks feel differently, of course.
However, it's not a clear-cut legal situation, either. Training != inference; it's only model output that violates licenses that's unambiguously infringing.
Creative Commons itself takes the, IMO very reasonable, view that training AI models on copyrighted works constitutes fair use:
https://creativecommons.org/2023/08/18/understanding-cc-licenses-and-generative-ai/
The folks who are calling such training "theft" might regret what they seem to be implicitly asking for, i.e. much stricter copyright. Copyright law won't prevent Microsoft, Google, OpenAI or Adobe from making shady licensing deals, but they'll prevent the free/open community from keeping up.
Many wonder what role CC licenses, and CC as an organization, can and should play in the future of generative AI. The legal and ethical uncertainty over using copyrighted inputs for training, the uncertainty over the legal status and best practices around works produced by generative AI, and the implications for this technology on the…
Some of the anti-#AI backlash seems to go hand in hand with an explicit or implicit defense and support for copyright -- a questionable institution that aggregates power with the Disneys & Apples of this world.
I am very skeptical that a just world is one that still makes heavy use of intellectual monopoly rights to secure individual incomes.
Copyright should, IMO, at best be regarded as a necessary evil, one which we have failed to rid ourselves of along with capitalism.
Erik Moeller
Glyn Moody