Re^4: SO and AI

You are not quoting from the post you replied to, and he didn't say that he wants to be paid.

He wants to keep control that his contributions are used in the same spirit.

Why he's dragging his dispute with SO to us is beyond me.

I suppose that SO has a disclaimer ~~that is taking the rights of the authors~~...°

AFAIK, PM restricts rights only in terms of deletions, because otherwise they would render whole threads useless.

Cheers Rolf
_{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language :)

see Wikisyntax for the Monastery}

°) nope it's creative commons and mentions attribution explicitly.

https://stackoverflow.com/help/licensing

If the AI is not attributing to his input he's free to sue SO

Comment on Re^4: SO and AI

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^5: SO and AI by marto (Cardinal) on May 20, 2024 at 15:55 UTC
I'm not so sure: " and you grant Stack Overflow the perpetual and irrevocable right and license to access, use, process, copy, distribute, export, display and to commercially exploit such Subscriber Content..."	[reply]
Re^6: SO and AI by pryrt (Abbot) on May 20, 2024 at 16:34 UTC
The SO article you referenced reminds you (the one who posts) that you cannot revoke the permission, but the permission you grant them is under CC BY-SA 4.0, which requires the licensee (SO) to give appropriate credit (which includes name and license information). I don't see how attribution is optional on SO's part.	[reply]
Re^7: SO and AI by marto (Cardinal) on May 20, 2024 at 16:43 UTC
I posted that in response to the question of retaining control ('He wants to keep control that his contributions are used in the same spirit') rather than attribution. I've made no mention of attribution in this post.	[reply]
Re^8: SO and AI by LanX (Saint) on May 20, 2024 at 18:17 UTC
Re^6: SO and AI by LanX (Saint) on May 20, 2024 at 16:10 UTC
Hmm, the attribution thing is unclear to me. Clearly they want that the authors do proper attribution, but do they have to attribute those authors too? Update I'd say yes Cheers Rolf _{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language :) see Wikisyntax for the Monastery}	[reply]
Re^5: SO and AI by dsheroh (Monsignor) on May 21, 2024 at 11:56 UTC
The quote is still relevant, as it shows that stevieb has a cough non-standard cough concept of what constitutes "attribution". With a little more context, his quote was: I have not been notified nor paid for my small contributions. Therefore I have not been attributed to. If he said that he wants attribution and if not being paid means (to him) that he has not been attributed to, then he did say that he wants to be paid.	[reply]
Re^6: SO and AI by choroba (Cardinal) on May 21, 2024 at 12:10 UTC
> he did* say that he wants to be paid.* Or notified. That's what he said. `map{substr$_->[0],$_->[1]\|\|0,1}[\\|\|{},3],[[]],[ref qr-1,-,-1],[{}],[sub{}^ARGV,3]`	[reply] [d/l]
Re^6: SO and AI (Super Ask) by LanX (Saint) on May 21, 2024 at 13:12 UTC
I agree about the "cough", and he hasn't replied yet to my questions. And he's dragging his beef with SO to us, without further explanation what exactly happened. Anyway SO has a CC licence which gives him the right to "attribution", and I am not willing to re-"cough" the definition. PM has no such licence, PM will/can't ever sell the data. But if PM decided to expand "super-search" by AI driven "super-ask" in the same non-commercial spirit, I don't see a way to block it. Again, a lot of speculative "coughing" at the moment. Cheers Rolf _{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language :) see Wikisyntax for the Monastery}	[reply]

Update