3 ms·

>It's likely that generative AI in general will be deemed fair use What if you train it only on my huge repo of GPL code? You are just remixing my code. Now y

>It's likely that generative AI in general will be deemed fair use What if you train it only on my huge repo of GPL code? You are just remixing my code. Now you maybe think "let me train on 2 different devs GPL code", the remixed code will probably be 50-50 and you can get away with it ? If the 2 number is too small then tell me what the number N should be ? From how many people you need to "steal" code , mix it and the output is "original" ? Edit: my opinion is that AI should be fair, if you train it on open source then model should also be open source and output should also be open source.

satvikpendem 3y ago
What if I learned to code based only on your huge repo of GPL code? I'd just be remixing your GPL code at that point, right? Will you brand all of my output as being GPL as well?
- simion314 3y ago
  >What if I learned to code based only on your huge repo of GPL code? I'd just be remixing your GPL code at that point, right? Will you brand all of my output as being GPL as well? This never happens, you will first learn from a book or tutorials. But your idea is sound, have Microsoft buy books from the authors and train the LLM on those books then have the LLM solve new problems. If is an AI and not a text interpolating tool then it should be able to learn like humans from a few books.
  - andybak 3y ago
    > This never happens, you will first learn from a book or tutorials. I have learned to code almost entirely from reading code. I hate tutorials and books. I occasionally skim docs but mainly for the code examples. So "never happens" is a curious take.
- qotgalaxy 3y ago
  [dead]
andybak 3y ago
> What if you train it only one my huge repo of GPL code? You are just remixing my code. The word "remixing" here is useful because it will fit any conclusion the reader prefers. Arguably even in your reductive example, the result would be non-infringing. Or not. Which conclusion you reach is exactly the topic under debate. Isn't this textbook question begging?
- simion314 3y ago
  But in this case the LLM will predict the next token based on the input data, all the input is mine , Microsoft tweaked some numbers to make the interpolation mroe correct. Imagine I get the Windows source code and rename the variables by adding a "314" after each varaible, after each function name and rebuild Windows, in your definition this is remixing and fair ?
  - andybak 3y ago
    I haven't said whether it's fair or not but oversimplifying a complex topic isn't going to shed any light. Where you like it or not this is an undecided area both legally and morally. Pretending it's clear cut is either disingenuous or delusional.
    - simion314 3y ago
      I think we agree , there is no clear line or clear answer. My simple example is to show that is not as simple as "the AI earned from N devs GPL code and now it can spit new original code without ZERO concerns", we know how this stuff works and that it can spit out the exact training input in some cases. So IMO a judge should ask the question "from how many people you need to steal, mix the input to be sure the output is actually original". And about the thing "if I read someone code it is not stealing" , hyumans are different and even for humans it is not allowed to read the code of your competitor and then write new code using that knowledge.
kube-system 3y ago
Copyrighted code with a GPL license is copyrighted code as far as copyright law is concerned. Copyright is the basis on which GPL is built. The GPL does not apply to anything that is fair use, public domain, or otherwise not copyrighted. If the author does not have copyright to the work in question, they don't have a right to license it. This is all to say: the question about copyright and fair use remains exactly the same regardless of license.
- mistrial9 3y ago
  you are assuming fair and impartial judgement that is then implemented
  - kube-system 3y ago
    I'm not sure what you're referring to. What do you think would be unfair or impartial?
    - mistrial9 3y ago
      here is what I was thinking -- in business (or war), parties can implement an unreasonable or illegal action in fact, then use time to rebuff others while making their position stronger.. or alternately simply pay gatekeepers or stakeholders while furthering their position, before others can actually stop the action. None of these or other scenarios involve a considered opinion by an impartial party with an effective implementation, in fact the key is to avoid impartial decision while gaining an advantage (and income) in the ground I do not disagree with what you said, only that in reality, this is not the only way business conflicts are decided.
      - kube-system 3y ago
        Yes, "the question" that I am referring to above is the currently lack of that impartial decision. Courts have yet to issue any ruling that is particularly useful for determining where the line is for the application of LLMs. I am saying that when the line for fair use is further defined in this context, it won't be predicated on which license, if any, the content has.

satvikpendem 3y ago

What if I learned to code based only on your huge repo of GPL code? I'd just be remixing your GPL code at that point, right? Will you brand all of my output as being GPL as well?

simion314 3y ago
>What if I learned to code based only on your huge repo of GPL code? I'd just be remixing your GPL code at that point, right? Will you brand all of my output as being GPL as well? This never happens, you will first learn from a book or tutorials. But your idea is sound, have Microsoft buy books from the authors and train the LLM on those books then have the LLM solve new problems. If is an AI and not a text interpolating tool then it should be able to learn like humans from a few books.
- andybak 3y ago
  > This never happens, you will first learn from a book or tutorials. I have learned to code almost entirely from reading code. I hate tutorials and books. I occasionally skim docs but mainly for the code examples. So "never happens" is a curious take.
qotgalaxy 3y ago
[dead]

andybak 3y ago

> What if you train it only one my huge repo of GPL code? You are just remixing my code. The word "remixing" here is useful because it will fit any conclusion the reader prefers. Arguably even in your reductive example, the result would be non-infringing. Or not. Which conclusion you reach is exactly the topic under debate. Isn't this textbook question begging?

simion314 3y ago
But in this case the LLM will predict the next token based on the input data, all the input is mine , Microsoft tweaked some numbers to make the interpolation mroe correct. Imagine I get the Windows source code and rename the variables by adding a "314" after each varaible, after each function name and rebuild Windows, in your definition this is remixing and fair ?
- andybak 3y ago
  I haven't said whether it's fair or not but oversimplifying a complex topic isn't going to shed any light. Where you like it or not this is an undecided area both legally and morally. Pretending it's clear cut is either disingenuous or delusional.
  - simion314 3y ago
    I think we agree , there is no clear line or clear answer. My simple example is to show that is not as simple as "the AI earned from N devs GPL code and now it can spit new original code without ZERO concerns", we know how this stuff works and that it can spit out the exact training input in some cases. So IMO a judge should ask the question "from how many people you need to steal, mix the input to be sure the output is actually original". And about the thing "if I read someone code it is not stealing" , hyumans are different and even for humans it is not allowed to read the code of your competitor and then write new code using that knowledge.

kube-system 3y ago

Copyrighted code with a GPL license is copyrighted code as far as copyright law is concerned. Copyright is the basis on which GPL is built. The GPL does not apply to anything that is fair use, public domain, or otherwise not copyrighted. If the author does not have copyright to the work in question, they don't have a right to license it. This is all to say: the question about copyright and fair use remains exactly the same regardless of license.

mistrial9 3y ago
you are assuming fair and impartial judgement that is then implemented
- kube-system 3y ago
  I'm not sure what you're referring to. What do you think would be unfair or impartial?
  - mistrial9 3y ago
    here is what I was thinking -- in business (or war), parties can implement an unreasonable or illegal action in fact, then use time to rebuff others while making their position stronger.. or alternately simply pay gatekeepers or stakeholders while furthering their position, before others can actually stop the action. None of these or other scenarios involve a considered opinion by an impartial party with an effective implementation, in fact the key is to avoid impartial decision while gaining an advantage (and income) in the ground I do not disagree with what you said, only that in reality, this is not the only way business conflicts are decided.
    - kube-system 3y ago
      Yes, "the question" that I am referring to above is the currently lack of that impartial decision. Courts have yet to issue any ruling that is particularly useful for determining where the line is for the application of LLMs. I am saying that when the line for fair use is further defined in this context, it won't be predicated on which license, if any, the content has.