I keep saying "no" to this sort of thing, for a variety of reasons.

1. "You can use this code for anything you want as long as you don't work in a field that I don't like" is pretty much the opposite of the spirit of the GPL.
2. The enormous companies slurping up all content available on the Internet do not care about copyright. The GPL already forbids adapting and redistributing code without licensing under the GPL, and they're not doing that. So another clause that says "hey, if you're training an AI, leave me out" is wasted text that nobody is going to read.
3. Making "AI" an issue instead of "big corporate abuse" means that academics and hobbyists can't legally train a language model on your code, even if they would otherwise comply with the license.
4. The FSF has never cared about anything unless Stallman personally cared about it on his personal computer, and they've recently proven that he matters to them more than the community, so we probably shouldn't ever expect a new GPL.
5. The GPL has so many problems (because it's been based on one person's personal focuses) that they don't care about or isolate in random silos (like the AGPL, as if the web is still a fringe thing) that AI barely seems relevant.

I mean, I get it. The language-model people are exhausting, and their disinterest in copyright law is unpleasant. But asking an organization that doesn't care to add restrictions to a license that the companies don't read isn't going to solve the problem.

The problem of recent AI is about fair use of data, not about copyright. To solve the AI problem, we need laws to stop abuse of data rather than to stop copying of code.

Too soon. The GPL is a license aligning prevalent copyright laws to some ideological goals. There are no prevalent copyright laws regarding AI yet, so there is nothing to base a copyright license on.

First step: introduce AI into copyright law (and pray The Mouse doesn't introduce it first).

It might be time to start thinking about it, however it will depend on the consensus among the legal system on weather you need to provide attribution through AI.

I think if we want a GPLv4, it should not be made by the FSF.

As in to keep it from being used to train AI? I think GPL and especially AGPL already cover that, but nobody cares and FSF can't afford to litigate it.

Richard Stallman talked about this topic there: https://framatube.org/w/1DbsMfwygx7rTjdBR4DPXp

Can't find timestamp tho.

GPLv3 already takes all of that. Programs that train AI have normal licencing applied. Programs that was modified by AI must be under GPL too. The neural network itself if not a program, it's a format and is always modifiable anyway as there is no source code. You can take any neural network and train it futher without data it was trained on before.

To license what? Code or text? I don't think either would have enough impact nor adoption.

To license what? Code or text? I don't think both aren't going to have enough impact and adoption.