Stack Overflow to charge LLM developers for access to its coding content
theregister.com
theregister.com
Does the creative commons somehow prohibit using in training sets? What does attribution mean in that case? Are the data dumps still happening?
(( Edit: Interesting idea below about a new creative commons that asks for a model trained on the data to be open. Seems like in the spirit of the CC ))
1. They are charging for use of the Overflow API, not the data itself.
2. They are enforcing the attribution clause of the existing CC-BY-SA license on the content. In their opinion if an AI bot answer includes parts from the stack overflow API (or data dump?), it should credit the most closely matching answer by linking back to stack overflow.
Following up on the parent, for those who don't already know, EE = ExpertsExchange, an older question-answer website that got strong Google SEO for the questions but eventually hid the actual answers behind a paywall. If you wanted to see the answer, you had to pay. StackOverflow was, at least partially, a reaction to that in the beginning.
There was initially some confusion about the license behind the answers, and they went through some license-spinning (https://stackoverflow.com/help/licensing).
Now, most things at StackOverflow (and the other StackExchange websites) are under CC BY-SA 3.0 or 4.0. Important to point out that there is no ban on training in any of those licenses, probably because they were written before that was even a thing. However, regardless (and the obligatory IANAL), that attribution clause should certainly be included, if it was directly derivative of the code on SO. (How to track thousands of attributions across a large codebase is another question.)
Whether closing down the API is abiding by the spirit of the license is an open question, but it certainly seems to be allowed by the letter of the license.
My personal feeling is that this is rowing upstream, and that the large and incredibly-well-funded companies like OpenAI, Claude, Google, and Meta have already scraped all of that historical data, so this really only hurts the new startups that are poorly funded. However, I'm sure that making this deal with Google et al will be a good thing for Stack Exchange as a whole and perhaps the funding will breathe new life into Stack Overflow (et al).
I wonder if the Share Alike license could be updated to include sharing models trained on that data. I’d certainly like to see more CC-licensed models out there.
Let me add that Google and OpenAI are fully aware that their tech is useless in the medium-term without technically-skilled humans contributing actual human thoughts to places like Stack Overflow.
Meta: What does the new Google AI Partnership mean? https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/429306/what-does-th...
Tech Crunch: Google brings Stack Overflow's knowledge base to Gemini for Google cloud https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39552701
I've heard that code helps models more generally, with reasoning and language, because it's clearly structured and things like conditionals and control flow apply to logic questions and making deductions and inferences in just plain conversation. It seems plausible to me, but I haven't seen anything formal about the idea.
So I don't see how SE could robustly enforce it, though maybe that isn't necessary anyway.
More discussion yesterday over here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39552701