I love this. I wonder if it is effective, or if there's any legal recourse should the LLMs ignore it.
> If you use the Llama Materials to create, train, fine tune, or otherwise improve an AI model, which is distributed or made available, you shall also include “Llama 3” at the beginning of any such AI model name.
Besides, I think for it to actually have any effect, it would have to be in a machine-readable format, I'm not sure placing a notice like that in the middle of a HTML document is good enough.
> Art. 4(3) applies only on condition that right holders have not expressly reserved their rights “in an appropriate manner, such as machine-readable means in the case of content made publicly available online”. According to Recital 18, “it should only be considered appropriate to reserve those rights by the use of machine-readable means, including metadata and terms and conditions of a website or a service. […] In other cases, it can be appropriate to reserve the rights by other means, such as contractual agreements or a unilateral declaration.” In other words, Art. 4 right holders may effectively prohibit text and data mining for commercial uses by adding robot.txt type metadata to their content online.
https://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2019/07/24/the-new-cop...
But maybe the author already have the same notice in a machine readable and of course I'm not a lawyer or anything, so this is just guessing based on what I've learned about the regulations that affect me personally in Spain/EU.
Gives a small hint. It should be respected and effective.
The hypocrisy of it is astoundingly obvious. The author used AI trained on stolen content to help write their blog post but then denies “the next author” from benefitting in the same way. If you love AI so much you should let it steal your content and train on it.
Classic “pull the ladder up behind me” mentality.