3 ms·
Nat Friedman had this to say: >In terms of the permissibility of training on public code, the jurisprudence here – broadly relied upon by the machine learning
by Hamuko 5y ago
Nat Friedman had this to say:
>In terms of the permissibility of training on public code, the jurisprudence here – broadly relied upon by the machine learning community – is that training ML models is fair use.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27677177 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27677177
- drran 5y agoGPL'ed code is not public code. It has the license, which requires fair exchange: if you use my code, then I can use your code under the same license. M$ uses GPL'ed code, so now we have the right to use their code under the same license.
- Hamuko 5y agoI imagine that "public code" means any code that is available in the public - be it under MIT, GPL or no license at all.
- pmlnr 5y agoPublic means a very specific thing in this context, namely Public Domain: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain Anything that is licensed has some level of exclusivity on it, and therefore it is not Public Domain.
- Hamuko 5y ago>Public means a very specific thing in this context What are you basing that? Especially when this is what is on the Copilot FAQ: >GitHub Copilot is powered by OpenAI Codex, a new AI system created by OpenAI. It has been trained on a selection of English language and source code from publicly available sources, including code in public repositories on GitHub. Absolutely zero mentions of public domain.
- pmlnr 5y agoYeah. That's the problem itself.
- drran 5y ago1) If an author did not grant license to his code, then nobody can use it, by default, according to copyright law. 2) If an author did grant license to his code, then somebody, but not anybody, can use the code according to license. 3) If a somebody refuses to comply with license, then he permanently loses the right to use the code under such license, so then see (1).
- Hamuko 5y agoCompliance with the license is not necessary if it's actually Fair Use. >In its most general sense, a fair use is any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and “transformative” purpose, such as to comment upon, criticize, or parody a copyrighted work. Such uses can be done without permission from the copyright owner. https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/what-is-fair-use/ https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/what-is-fair-...
- syshum 5y ago>> If an author did not grant license to his code, then nobody can use it, by default, according to copyright law. this is false. Fair Use is not about the license, it is a set of exemptions from copyright. for example I do not need a license to reproduce and publish a snippet of book for the proposes of review / criticism. The author may not like what I have to say, and did not grant me a license but I certainly can use the snippet under copy right law. The Legal Experts of ML are relaying I believe on the "education" exemption in Fair use for their "training of ML models is fair use". That will be an interesting case for sure
- tedunangst 5y agoThat's not how fair use works.
- drran 5y agoM$ should demonstrate, how fair use works, on their own code. If they are afraid that such "fair use" will lead to copyright infringement of their code, then they have no ground to stay that same use is fair for my code.
- tedunangst 5y agoThat's also not how fair use works.
- klelatti 5y agoThanks - I'd missed that. Well that answers the question then!
- aliasEli 5y agoOf course we can trust all people that claim that they were doing nothing illegal. Because they are lawful citizens, we can take their word for it.
- klelatti 5y agoAnswers the question on GH's reasoning rather than the merits of their position.
- aliasEli 5y agoThe problem here is that there are no real links to support their position. Can they provide some real legal evidence?
- throwaway2037 5y agoWhile your question is intellectually worthy, I doubt there is any serious case law in existence testing this scenario. I could imagine very soon, someone will create a video game that can generate art based upon a trained model. At some point, the model will regurtitate an exact replica (or very very close). Someone will screenshot it, and the original artist -- who likely was not paid -- will sue. Or musician. Take your pick. Any performance or visual arts could fall under this umbrella.