65 ms·

For anyone who wants to slow the development of AI, copyright is the soft underbelly to go after.

by brown 3y ago

dvt 3y ago
Are you seriously arguing that stealing code is okay in the name of "AI development"?
- HideousKojima 3y ago
  I... don't see how you read what he said that way at all?
  - jakelazaroff 3y ago
    If you read a negative connotation into "slow the development of AI", that's what you get. It's how I'd interpret that comment, too.
- yamoriyamori 3y ago
  I think their comment was to the contrary, that the copyright/legal implications of 'stolen' code could seriously hobble the wider development, proliferation, adoption, and commercialization of AI software.
  - dvt 3y ago
    Maybe I misunderstood, but the comment seemed to dismiss copyright issues as a cheap way to kill AI ("soft underbelly"). I think stealing code is a pretty serious deal and the onus is on AI software companies to make sure they aren't doing it; it's not "slowing the development of AI" to keep them accountable.
    - sebzim4500 3y ago
      Soft underbelly isn't dismissive, they're just saying that it is the natural target to aim for.
    - hughesjj 3y ago
      "soft underbelly" is synonymous with "weak point" or "Achilles heel", it's in no way dismissive. If anything, it's the opposite of dismissive.
- lmarcos 3y ago
  Is not ok, but Microsoft couldn't care less (because they are not going to get fined).
  - blibble 3y ago
    yes, because they don't indemnify their customers anyone sensible should stay the hell away from copilot until the fair use question is settled
    - bastardoperator 3y ago
      Looks like they do. https://github.com/customer-terms/github-copilot-product-specific-terms https://github.com/customer-terms/github-copilot-product-spe... 4. Defense of Third Party Claims. If your Agreement provides for the defense of third party claims, that provision will apply to your use of GitHub Copilot. Notwithstanding any other language in your Agreement, any GitHub defense obligations related to your use of GitHub Copilot do not apply if (i) the claim is based on Code that differs from a Suggestion provided by GitHub Copilot, or (ii) you have not enabled all filtering features available in GitHub Copilot.
      - blibble 3y ago
        interesting > If your Agreement provides for the defense of third party claims do any of them? it also states: > You retain all responsibility for Your Code, including Suggestions you include in Your Code or reference to develop Your Code. It is entirely your decision whether to use Suggestions generated by GitHub Copilot. If you use Suggestions, GitHub strongly recommends that you have reasonable policies and practices in place designed to prevent the use of a Suggestion in a way that may violate the rights of others. This includes, but is not limited to, using all filtering features available in GitHub Copilot. (contra proferentem would apply though)
        bastardoperator 3y ago
        I think it's pretty clear. If you're not filtering, you're liable. If you are and something transpires, they'll fight your legal battle for you which is probably better than any monetary indemnity clause. I assume this is for enterprise users where it actually matters.
- noselasd 3y ago
  The comment is arguing quite the opposite.
- IshKebab 3y ago
  Training AI on code is clearly not the same as stealing it.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- jupp0r 3y ago
  What happens if I (a human) read GPL code and then reuse the knowledge gained from it in my own commercial projects? It's not as clear cut as you make it sound.
  - VWWHFSfQ 3y ago
    Copyright. Copyright. That is the issue. If you reproduce the code verbatim then you are in violation. This is what the AI is doing. Just learning from the GPL code to make yourself smarter is not the problem.
    - snacktaster 3y ago
      It's going to be an uphill battle just to get people to even understand what the problems are. And this is even a technical forum. Now imagine trying to explain these nuances to a judge or jury.
      - jacquesm 3y ago
        It's not so much an ability to understand as it is a desire to not understand in order to be able to ignore the rightsholders' licensing terms. Plenty of tech companies exist by putting a thin layer on top of the hard work of others and if those others can be ignored then that's what they'll do.
    - codexb 3y ago
      The example given in the article isn't verbatim.
  - challengedchip 3y ago
    It could be as clear-cut as you've just made it: "a human". An LLM is not a human. You could get into the semantics of "learning" - does JPEG encoding count as the computer "learning" how to reproduce the original image? But trying to create some metric for why LLMs "learn" and JPEG doesn't "learn" on the basis of the algorithms is a philosophical endeavor. Copyright is more about practicality - about realized externalities - than it is about philosophy. That's why selling cars and selling guns are regulated differently, despite the fact that you could reduce both to "metal mechanical machines that kill" by rhetorical argument. Even from a strictly legal perspective, it actually is fairly clear-cut. The answer to "what if I (a human) read GPL code and then reuse the knowledge gained from it..." comes down to a few straightforward properties of the license. GPL doesn't cover "reduced to practice" as many corporate contracts do, so terms covering "the knowledge gained" are lenient. GPL covers "verbatim" copies which is what LLMs are doing, that's as clear cut as it gets. Inb4: "So what if I add a few spaces here and there?" - well, GPL also covers "a work based on"; this is where I (who am not a lawyer) can't speak confidently, but surely there are legal differences between "based on" and "reduced to practice", considering that both are very common occurrences in contracts, so there actually would be a lot of precedent.
- codexb 3y ago
  Are you seriously arguing that using short snippets open source code to inspire similar, yet not exactly the same, original code is "stealing code"? Human developers do that all day long. And just because a piece of code exists in a GPL project doesn't mean it originated there. Every algorithm or sort function likely originated in a more permissively licensed project before it got included in a GPL project.

For anyone who wants to slow the development of AI, copyright is the soft underbelly to go after.

by brown 3y ago

For anyone who wants to slow the development of AI, copyright is the soft underbelly to go after.

dvt 3y ago

Are you seriously arguing that stealing code is okay in the name of "AI development"?

HideousKojima 3y ago
I... don't see how you read what he said that way at all?
- jakelazaroff 3y ago
  If you read a negative connotation into "slow the development of AI", that's what you get. It's how I'd interpret that comment, too.
yamoriyamori 3y ago
I think their comment was to the contrary, that the copyright/legal implications of 'stolen' code could seriously hobble the wider development, proliferation, adoption, and commercialization of AI software.
- dvt 3y ago
  Maybe I misunderstood, but the comment seemed to dismiss copyright issues as a cheap way to kill AI ("soft underbelly"). I think stealing code is a pretty serious deal and the onus is on AI software companies to make sure they aren't doing it; it's not "slowing the development of AI" to keep them accountable.
  - sebzim4500 3y ago
    Soft underbelly isn't dismissive, they're just saying that it is the natural target to aim for.
  - hughesjj 3y ago
    "soft underbelly" is synonymous with "weak point" or "Achilles heel", it's in no way dismissive. If anything, it's the opposite of dismissive.
lmarcos 3y ago
Is not ok, but Microsoft couldn't care less (because they are not going to get fined).
- blibble 3y ago
  yes, because they don't indemnify their customers anyone sensible should stay the hell away from copilot until the fair use question is settled
  - bastardoperator 3y ago
    Looks like they do. https://github.com/customer-terms/github-copilot-product-specific-terms https://github.com/customer-terms/github-copilot-product-spe... 4. Defense of Third Party Claims. If your Agreement provides for the defense of third party claims, that provision will apply to your use of GitHub Copilot. Notwithstanding any other language in your Agreement, any GitHub defense obligations related to your use of GitHub Copilot do not apply if (i) the claim is based on Code that differs from a Suggestion provided by GitHub Copilot, or (ii) you have not enabled all filtering features available in GitHub Copilot.
    - blibble 3y ago
      interesting > If your Agreement provides for the defense of third party claims do any of them? it also states: > You retain all responsibility for Your Code, including Suggestions you include in Your Code or reference to develop Your Code. It is entirely your decision whether to use Suggestions generated by GitHub Copilot. If you use Suggestions, GitHub strongly recommends that you have reasonable policies and practices in place designed to prevent the use of a Suggestion in a way that may violate the rights of others. This includes, but is not limited to, using all filtering features available in GitHub Copilot. (contra proferentem would apply though)
      - bastardoperator 3y ago
        I think it's pretty clear. If you're not filtering, you're liable. If you are and something transpires, they'll fight your legal battle for you which is probably better than any monetary indemnity clause. I assume this is for enterprise users where it actually matters.
noselasd 3y ago
The comment is arguing quite the opposite.
IshKebab 3y ago
Training AI on code is clearly not the same as stealing it.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
jupp0r 3y ago
What happens if I (a human) read GPL code and then reuse the knowledge gained from it in my own commercial projects? It's not as clear cut as you make it sound.
- VWWHFSfQ 3y ago
  Copyright. Copyright. That is the issue. If you reproduce the code verbatim then you are in violation. This is what the AI is doing. Just learning from the GPL code to make yourself smarter is not the problem.
  - snacktaster 3y ago
    It's going to be an uphill battle just to get people to even understand what the problems are. And this is even a technical forum. Now imagine trying to explain these nuances to a judge or jury.
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      It's not so much an ability to understand as it is a desire to not understand in order to be able to ignore the rightsholders' licensing terms. Plenty of tech companies exist by putting a thin layer on top of the hard work of others and if those others can be ignored then that's what they'll do.
  - codexb 3y ago
    The example given in the article isn't verbatim.
- challengedchip 3y ago
  It could be as clear-cut as you've just made it: "a human". An LLM is not a human. You could get into the semantics of "learning" - does JPEG encoding count as the computer "learning" how to reproduce the original image? But trying to create some metric for why LLMs "learn" and JPEG doesn't "learn" on the basis of the algorithms is a philosophical endeavor. Copyright is more about practicality - about realized externalities - than it is about philosophy. That's why selling cars and selling guns are regulated differently, despite the fact that you could reduce both to "metal mechanical machines that kill" by rhetorical argument. Even from a strictly legal perspective, it actually is fairly clear-cut. The answer to "what if I (a human) read GPL code and then reuse the knowledge gained from it..." comes down to a few straightforward properties of the license. GPL doesn't cover "reduced to practice" as many corporate contracts do, so terms covering "the knowledge gained" are lenient. GPL covers "verbatim" copies which is what LLMs are doing, that's as clear cut as it gets. Inb4: "So what if I add a few spaces here and there?" - well, GPL also covers "a work based on"; this is where I (who am not a lawyer) can't speak confidently, but surely there are legal differences between "based on" and "reduced to practice", considering that both are very common occurrences in contracts, so there actually would be a lot of precedent.
codexb 3y ago
Are you seriously arguing that using short snippets open source code to inspire similar, yet not exactly the same, original code is "stealing code"? Human developers do that all day long. And just because a piece of code exists in a GPL project doesn't mean it originated there. Every algorithm or sort function likely originated in a more permissively licensed project before it got included in a GPL project.