3 ms·

I was trying to explain so that you might understand, that there is a continuum between copying (the identity function) to more complex combinations of other tr

by hurril 2y ago

I was trying to explain so that you might understand, that there is a continuum between copying (the identity function) to more complex combinations of other transformations via your memory/ intuition. I am definitely not trying to conclude that copyright or licensing is bad. I have read the scheduler implementations in a number of different operating systems. If I were to implement a scheduler in a operating system, would you say that there is a probability that my scheduler will be a derivative to some extent of those that I have read? How is this materially different from training a GPT on those same pieces of code, and then asking it to construct a scheduler? I would argue that while there are differences, there are also similarities. That means that the dichotomy is not true.

ncallaway 2y ago
> How is this materially different from training a GPT on those same pieces of code, and then asking it to construct a scheduler? I am saying sometimes GPT doesn’t do the thing you’re describing. Sometimes it produces exact copies of something that it was trained on. When it does that (not a “superficially similar” one, but an exact copy) can OpenAI be held liable for copyright infringement? Because it seems like they want to avoid liability on both ends. They don’t want to be liable for copyright infringement based on ingesting works, and they don’t want to be liable when their tools produces a *copy* of existing works. I don’t think that’s an acceptable framework.
- hurril 2y ago
  Thing is: derivatives are verboten, sometimes. Otherwise we could all just steel and rename all the things.
  - ncallaway 2y ago
    Okay, I think we may be arguing basically the same thing. I’m arguing that copying is not allowed. And you’re arguing derivative works are not always allowed. I originally thought you were arguing that derivative works are allowed, and that since copying was a derivative work, that copying was therefore also allowed. Sorry for my misunderstanding of what you were originally saying.

by hurril 2y ago

ncallaway 2y ago

> How is this materially different from training a GPT on those same pieces of code, and then asking it to construct a scheduler? I am saying sometimes GPT doesn’t do the thing you’re describing. Sometimes it produces exact copies of something that it was trained on. When it does that (not a “superficially similar” one, but an exact copy) can OpenAI be held liable for copyright infringement? Because it seems like they want to avoid liability on both ends. They don’t want to be liable for copyright infringement based on ingesting works, and they don’t want to be liable when their tools produces a *copy* of existing works. I don’t think that’s an acceptable framework.

hurril 2y ago
Thing is: derivatives are verboten, sometimes. Otherwise we could all just steel and rename all the things.
- ncallaway 2y ago
  Okay, I think we may be arguing basically the same thing. I’m arguing that copying is not allowed. And you’re arguing derivative works are not always allowed. I originally thought you were arguing that derivative works are allowed, and that since copying was a derivative work, that copying was therefore also allowed. Sorry for my misunderstanding of what you were originally saying.