I used to really admire creative commons. before AI, licensing works under creative commons was a win-win. I wish Wikipedia didn't allow commercial reuse, but otherwise, the CC suite of licenses are good. But it seems they've shown their true colors as a copyright minimalist group. And here again, AI has recalibrated my thinking. I see every AI firm ripping the internet limb from limb. bots have made the internet worse for every human user. the benefit to us, if one exists, are the table scraps we get in LLMs like chatgpt, and media generators that can make pictures, video, and so on. It's not a trade most people would make willingly. the most profound benefit I've ever had from generative AI saved me a couple hours of work at best. Its best use case is in coding, which has nothing to do with CC licensed works (most code is under GPL or MIT). So Creative Commons is deliberately not coming out with new licenses that specifically prohibit AI training but allow pro-social reuse. And their stance is that training AI on copyrighted works is legal (fair use). I have art that I want to share with human beings because being part of a society means even if I am not specifically compensated for sharing my art, my art's presence in the world is a benefit to society. It's my way to grow the commons and recognize the value I get from other people's CC art. Contributing art under the iron fist of AI provides that same tiny benefit, but a load of harms. Along with the societal negativity of fraudulent media being posted as real, the profits these companies intend to make are not flowing downward. These companies are run by the most anti-social people in the most anti-social city in the world. Giving my art to them is like loading the gun myself. https://old.reddit.com/r/creativecommons/comments/10c2iw2/is_there_a_creative_commons_license_that/