SOME LONG LEGAL STATEMENTS HERE

Warning

This post is more than a year old. Information may be outdated.

Project

AIs.txt is a mental model of a machine learning permission system. Intuitively, question this: what if we could make a human-readable file that declines machine learning (a.k.a. Copilot use)? It's like robots.txt, but for Copilot.

Key Issues

Would it be legally binding?

For now, no. It would be a polite way to mark my preference to opt out of such data mining. It's closer to the Ask BigTechs Not to Track option rather than a legal license. Technically, Apple's App Tracking Transparency does not ban all tracking activity; it never can.

254AFC

Why not `LICENSE` or `COPYING.txt`?

Both are mainly written in human language and cannot provide granular scraping permissions depending on the collector. Also, GitHub Copilot ignores LICENSE or COPYING.txt, claiming we consented to Copilot using our codes for machine learning by signing up and pushing code to GitHub, We may expand the LICENSE system to include the terms for machine learning use, but that would even more edge case and chaotic licensing systems.

Backlinks6

230517 QA.json GitHub Copilot Investigation 221024 221022 221021

Comments0

No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts.

Comments

SOME LONG LEGAL STATEMENTS HERE

Key Issues

Would it be legally binding?

Why not `LICENSE` or `COPYING.txt`?

Does machine learning purposes of copyrighted works require a license?

Is `robots.txt` legally binding?

Any industry trends?

Can we even draw the line?

Maybe it can benefit AI companies too

Relevant Thread

SOME LONG LEGAL STATEMENTS HERE

Key Issues

Would it be legally binding?

Why not LICENSE or COPYING.txt?

Does machine learning purposes of copyrighted works require a license?

Is robots.txt legally binding?

Any industry trends?

Can we even draw the line?

Maybe it can benefit AI companies too

Relevant Thread

Why not `LICENSE` or `COPYING.txt`?

Is `robots.txt` legally binding?