Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Is there any license that is designed to exclude LLMs?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

1–10 of 20 posts

Ask HN: Is there any license that is designed to exclude LLMs?

#1

Post by urlwolf »

I don't want my content to be harvested by LLMs; They are removing attribution, among other things. Otherwise, I'd like to stick as close as possible to the open source licenses (say MIT). Is there such a license out there? If not, anyone working on such a thing?

So far what we have learned is that robots.txt doesn't work; major sites are using login-only access with 2FA to have any hope to keep their content away from LLMs. I imagine the licenses would be one thing, but actually implementing/enforcing them might be a whole other can of worms!

Re: Ask HN: Is there any license that is designed to exclude LLMs?

#3

Post by urlwolf »

DamonHD wrote: post #2

Any licence that requires attribution should be enough in principle , eg CC BY 4.0, Apache 2.0.

Thanks, I suspect the LLM companies would ignore this, and of course getting into a legal battle is beyond the means of most content producers. so perhaps the license is not the solution, and we need to create a complete world outside http...

Re: Ask HN: Is there any license that is designed to exclude LLMs?

#4

Post by DamonHD »

urlwolf wrote: post #3
DamonHD wrote: post #2

Any licence that requires attribution should be enough in principle , eg CC BY 4.0, Apache 2.0.

Thanks, I suspect the LLM companies would ignore this, and of course getting into a legal battle is beyond the means of most content producers. so perhaps the license is not the solution, and we need to create a complete world outside http...

I suspect that the BadGuys(TM) will indeed ignore any sort of licence, as they have done with content that I created long ago.

However, for a laugh, I just made all the textual content on my key site explicitly CC BY 4.0. Most of my code is already Apache 4.0 and data CC0.

Re: Ask HN: Is there any license that is designed to exclude LLMs?

#6

Post by krapp »

You don't have a choice. Any content you put online will be harvested by LLMs regardless of your intent, or any license you post to the contrary. That's already the norm and it isn't going to change any time soon.

hehehheh's comment is your best option - poison your content when possible. It's still going to be consumed but at least you can make the LLMs choke on it. Second best option is to never post content to the free internet, but even that's just a temporary measure - all accessible data (including private data) will be assimilated eventually.. But expecting a license to work in a post LLM world is just naive.

Re: Ask HN: Is there any license that is designed to exclude LLMs?

#7

Post by rcxdude »

urlwolf wrote: post #3
DamonHD wrote: post #2

Any licence that requires attribution should be enough in principle , eg CC BY 4.0, Apache 2.0.

Thanks, I suspect the LLM companies would ignore this, and of course getting into a legal battle is beyond the means of most content producers. so perhaps the license is not the solution, and we need to create a complete world outside http...

By their current interpretation of copyright law (which hasn't yet been successfully challenged), the license is almost completely irrelevant, because they believe it is fair use. You need to first establish that what they are doing is copyright infringement before you can apply any license terms.

Re: Ask HN: Is there any license that is designed to exclude LLMs?

#8

Post by bilekas »

krapp wrote: post #6

You don't have a choice. Any content you put online will be harvested by LLMs regardless of your intent, or any license you post to the contrary. That's already the norm and it isn't going to change any time soon. hehehheh's comment is your best option - poison your content when possible. It's still going to be consumed but at least you can make the LLMs choke on it. Second best option is to never post content to the…

As bad as it sounds, this is definitely the best advice unless you actually have the funds and determination to bring legal action against the licensing breach I assume ?

Re: Ask HN: Is there any license that is designed to exclude LLMs?

#9

Post by Ukv »

If machine learning is found to be fair use, the license you choose does not matter - in the same way Google Books can scan books and make them searchable without a specific license to do so.

If machine learning is not found to be fair use, and your concern is the removal of attribution, then MIT license should be fine.

> So far what we have learned is that robots.txt doesn't work;

The companies training models I'm aware of[0][1][2] all respect robots.txt for their crawling. Can't necessarily guarantee that all of them do - but the fact that smaller players are likely to use CommonCrawl (which also follows robots.txt[3]) means it should catch the vast majority of cases and I'd recommend it if you don't want your work trained on.

> major sites are using login-only access with 2FA to have any hope to keep their content away from LLMs

I suspect it's more that users with accounts are more valuable than lurkers, and framing forced sign-up as protecting user data from LLMs is a convenient excuse.

[0]: https://platform.openai.com/docs/bots

[1]: https://support.anthropic.com/en/articles/8896518-does-anthr...

[2]: https://blog.google/technology/ai/an-update-on-web-publisher...

[3]: https://commoncrawl.org/faq

Re: Ask HN: Is there any license that is designed to exclude LLMs?

#10

Post by kouteiheika »

The LLMs' training data is already mostly All Rights Reserved content which is more restrictive than whatever license you could come up with, and if that doesn't stop anyone then sure as hell you won't stand a chance either.

You best bet to fight back is to either try to poison your data, or to train your own models on their data.

Post reply on HN