3 ms·

> I asked if I can learn from that code, which obviously I can. Did you actually read the link you were given? Clean room design is because you may inadvertent

> I asked if I can learn from that code, which obviously I can. Did you actually read the link you were given? Clean room design is because you may inadvertently plagiarize copyrighted works from your memory of reading it. i.e. the act of reading may cause accidental infringement when implementing the "things you learn"

nickelpro 4y ago
Sure but the infringement is the problem, not the ideas themselves. You're describing thought crime right now. It's not illegal to learn things.
- supermatt 4y ago
  And if you "learn" something and accidentally rewrite it verbatim? Thats what clean-room design is to protect against
  - nickelpro 4y ago
    Rewriting the code verbatim and distributing it would be a copyright infringement, yes, you do not have a write to distribute code written by other people That's completely different from reading and learning from code, which is what grondo described. Clean room design relies on this, in a clean room design you have one party read and describe the protected work, and another party implement it. That first party reading the protected work is learning from closed-source IP.
    - supermatt 4y ago
      > That's completely different from reading and learning from code, which is what grondo described. AI (e.g. copilot) has already been shown to break copyright of material in its training set. Thats the context of this whole thread.
      - nickelpro 4y ago
        Perhaps, but not of Grondo's point. If an AI infringes on copyright then it infringes on copyright, that's unfortunate for the distributors of that code. Humans accidentally infringe on copyright sometimes too. It's not a unique problem to machine learning. The potential to infringe on copyright has not made observing/learning/watching/reading copyright materials prohibited for humans, nor should it or (likely) will it become prohibited for machine learning algorithms.
        supermatt 4y ago
        > Perhaps, but not of Grondo's point. Grondo said that AI should be given access to all code, including private and unlicensed code. He was given a link to Clean Room Design demonstrating the problem with the same entity (the AI) reading and learning from the existing code and the risk of regurgitation when writing new code. He goes on to say thats what he does, which doesn't change that fact. > Humans accidentally infringe on copyright sometimes too. Indeed we do, and its almost entirely unnoticed, even by the author. > nor should it or (likely) will it become illegal for machine learning algorithms. If those machine learning algorithms are taking in unlicensed material and then they later output unlicensed and/or copyrighted material, then they are a liability. Why would you want that when you can train it otherwise and be sure it NEVER infringes others IP? Its a no-brainer, surely. Or are you assuming there is some magic inherent in other peoples private code?
        nickelpro 4y ago
        > If those machine learning algorithms are taking in unlicensed material and then they later output unlicensed and/or copyrighted material, then they are a liability. Why would you want that when you can train it otherwise and be sure it NEVER infringes others IP? Because it could produce a better model that produces better code. You're now arguing a heavily reduced point. That a model that trained on proprietary code is at higher risk of reproducing infringing code is not a point under contention. The clean room serves the same purpose, it is a risk mitigation strategy. Risk mitigation is a choice, left up to individuals. Maybe you use a clean room design, maybe you don't. Maybe you use a model trained on closed-source IP, maybe you don't. There are risks associated with these choices, but that is up to individuals to make. The choice to observe closed source IP and learn from it shouldn't be prohibited just because some won't want to assume that risk.
grondo4 4y ago
> i.e. the act of reading may cause accidental infringement when implementing the "things you learn" Surely you know this isn't the case right? Maybe you're confused because we're talking about programming and not a different creative artform? Great artists read, watch and consume copyrighted works of art all day, if they didn't they wouldn't be great artists. And yet the content they produce is entirely there own, free from the copyright of the works they learned from. What's the difference then in programming? Why can an artist be trusted not to reproduce the copyrighted works that they learned from but not the programmer?
- waboremo 4y ago
  Artists get into trouble all the time for producing works very close to something that already exist. That's like the number one reason artists get shunned in the communities they were in.
  - nickelpro 4y ago
    Every filmmaker watches movies Every author reads books Every painter view paintings Unless you're arguing that every single artist across every field of artistic expression is constantly being jeopardized by claims of copyright infringement, this is a nonsensical point to make.
    - waboremo 4y ago
      But they’re not creating similar works, unlike AI which IS. Why is this so complicated for you?
  - BornInChicago 4y ago
    I would seriously question if this happens all the time, these days. The whole copyright thing is way behind the digital and internet revolution. Look at what the Prince case did for transformation copyright fair use.
  - astrange 4y ago
    The process of online artists shaming each other doesn't really have anything to do with the legal system, though they all act like it is.

nickelpro 4y ago

Sure but the infringement is the problem, not the ideas themselves. You're describing thought crime right now. It's not illegal to learn things.

supermatt 4y ago
And if you "learn" something and accidentally rewrite it verbatim? Thats what clean-room design is to protect against
- nickelpro 4y ago
  Rewriting the code verbatim and distributing it would be a copyright infringement, yes, you do not have a write to distribute code written by other people That's completely different from reading and learning from code, which is what grondo described. Clean room design relies on this, in a clean room design you have one party read and describe the protected work, and another party implement it. That first party reading the protected work is learning from closed-source IP.
  - supermatt 4y ago
    > That's completely different from reading and learning from code, which is what grondo described. AI (e.g. copilot) has already been shown to break copyright of material in its training set. Thats the context of this whole thread.
    - nickelpro 4y ago
      Perhaps, but not of Grondo's point. If an AI infringes on copyright then it infringes on copyright, that's unfortunate for the distributors of that code. Humans accidentally infringe on copyright sometimes too. It's not a unique problem to machine learning. The potential to infringe on copyright has not made observing/learning/watching/reading copyright materials prohibited for humans, nor should it or (likely) will it become prohibited for machine learning algorithms.
      - supermatt 4y ago
        > Perhaps, but not of Grondo's point. Grondo said that AI should be given access to all code, including private and unlicensed code. He was given a link to Clean Room Design demonstrating the problem with the same entity (the AI) reading and learning from the existing code and the risk of regurgitation when writing new code. He goes on to say thats what he does, which doesn't change that fact. > Humans accidentally infringe on copyright sometimes too. Indeed we do, and its almost entirely unnoticed, even by the author. > nor should it or (likely) will it become illegal for machine learning algorithms. If those machine learning algorithms are taking in unlicensed material and then they later output unlicensed and/or copyrighted material, then they are a liability. Why would you want that when you can train it otherwise and be sure it NEVER infringes others IP? Its a no-brainer, surely. Or are you assuming there is some magic inherent in other peoples private code?
        nickelpro 4y ago
        > If those machine learning algorithms are taking in unlicensed material and then they later output unlicensed and/or copyrighted material, then they are a liability. Why would you want that when you can train it otherwise and be sure it NEVER infringes others IP? Because it could produce a better model that produces better code. You're now arguing a heavily reduced point. That a model that trained on proprietary code is at higher risk of reproducing infringing code is not a point under contention. The clean room serves the same purpose, it is a risk mitigation strategy. Risk mitigation is a choice, left up to individuals. Maybe you use a clean room design, maybe you don't. Maybe you use a model trained on closed-source IP, maybe you don't. There are risks associated with these choices, but that is up to individuals to make. The choice to observe closed source IP and learn from it shouldn't be prohibited just because some won't want to assume that risk.

grondo4 4y ago

> i.e. the act of reading may cause accidental infringement when implementing the "things you learn" Surely you know this isn't the case right? Maybe you're confused because we're talking about programming and not a different creative artform? Great artists read, watch and consume copyrighted works of art all day, if they didn't they wouldn't be great artists. And yet the content they produce is entirely there own, free from the copyright of the works they learned from. What's the difference then in programming? Why can an artist be trusted not to reproduce the copyrighted works that they learned from but not the programmer?

waboremo 4y ago
Artists get into trouble all the time for producing works very close to something that already exist. That's like the number one reason artists get shunned in the communities they were in.
- nickelpro 4y ago
  Every filmmaker watches movies Every author reads books Every painter view paintings Unless you're arguing that every single artist across every field of artistic expression is constantly being jeopardized by claims of copyright infringement, this is a nonsensical point to make.
  - waboremo 4y ago
    But they’re not creating similar works, unlike AI which IS. Why is this so complicated for you?
- BornInChicago 4y ago
  I would seriously question if this happens all the time, these days. The whole copyright thing is way behind the digital and internet revolution. Look at what the Prince case did for transformation copyright fair use.
- astrange 4y ago
  The process of online artists shaming each other doesn't really have anything to do with the legal system, though they all act like it is.