7 ms·

There's some irony in the fact that people will ignore this license in exactly the same way Mistral and all the other LLM guys ignore the copyright and licensin

There's some irony in the fact that people will ignore this license in exactly the same way Mistral and all the other LLM guys ignore the copyright and licensing on the works they ingest.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
nicce 2y ago
In many countries you even can't claim copyright for the output of the AI to use license like this.
- hannasanarion 2y ago
  Copyright on the software that produces something isn't the same as copyright on the output. The library's copyright is intact, as normal, and they can control who uses it and how just like any other software. The output of AI systems is not copyrightable, but the systems themselves are, and associated EULAs are valid.
  - nicce 2y ago
    Is that so certain? To be able to make claims for what you can use the output, can you do it without making any claims for about control and ownership of the output? Of course, they can revoke your right to use the software, but if it goes to court, that would be interesting case.
    - wrs 2y ago
      If there’s no copyright in the weights to begin with, the only restrictions you have are the ones you agreed to when you accepted the license agreement. Find the weights somewhere else and you don’t have to worry about the license. I don’t know why there isn’t more discussion on this point and people just assume there’s an underlying copyright basis to the licensing of weights. As far as I know that isn’t settled at all.
- wakawaka28 2y ago
  I'd like to know how they think they'll prove I didn't write whatever code I generate. Unless it is a direct copy of something else available to the investigator, good luck.
- numpad0 2y ago
  I think it's not important if this is enforcable, this license sounds to me like a warning that the output may be radioactive, which is where AI copyright discussions are slowly shifting towards.
belter 2y ago
And nobody will sue anybody because suing means...discovery....
- aitchnyu 2y ago
  Umm, are you saying its mutually assured destruction for the book pirate (AI company) and api wrapper startup?
hehdhdjehehegwv 2y ago
So basically I, as an open source author, had my code eaten up by Mistral without my consent, but if I want to use their code model I’m subject to a bunch of restrictions that benefit their bottom line? The problem these AI companies have is they live in a glass house and they can’t throw IP rocks around without breaking their own “your content is our training data” foundation. They only reason I can think of that Google doesn’t go after OpenAI for scraping YouTube is then they’d put themselves in the same crosshairs, and may set a precedent they’d also be bound by. Given the model is “on the web” I have the same rights as Mistral to use anything online however I want without regard for IP, right? Utter absurdity.
- htrp 2y ago
  call it an Enterprise poison pill.
  - hehdhdjehehegwv 2y ago
    But a pill they also have to swallow.
    - dodslaser 2y ago
      Enterprise suicide cult.
- IshKebab 2y ago
  > So basically I, as an open source author, had my code eaten up by Mistral without my consent Not necessarily. You consented to people reading your code and learning from it when you posted it on Github. Whether or not there's an issue with AI doing the same remains to be settled. It certainly isn't clear cut that separate consent would be required.
  - hehdhdjehehegwv 2y ago
    I did not give consent to train on my software and the license does not allow commercial use of it. They have taken my code and now are dictating how I can use their derived work. Personally I think these tools are useful, but if the data comes from the commons the model should also belong to the commons. This is just another attempt to gain private benefit from public work. There are legal issues to be resolved, and there is an explosion of lawsuits already, but the fact pattern is simple and applies to nearly all closed-source AI companies.
nullc 2y ago
Five years ago it would not have been at all controversial that these weights would not be copyrightable in the US, they're machine generated output on third party data. Yet somehow we've entered a weird timeline where obvious copyfraud is fine, by the same entities that are at best on the line of engaging in commercial copyright infringement at a hereto unforeseen scale.
- esperent 2y ago
  It's clear that when enough money and power is on the line - and fear that other countries will overtake them - all countries are willing to conveniently and pragmatically ignore their laws. I don't think this is any kind of surprise.
rldjbpin 2y ago
should it be morally ok to not follow these kinds of license, maybe except when you are selling a service without making any changes? i wonder what people visiting this site thinks about this.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

There's some irony in the fact that people will ignore this license in exactly the same way Mistral and all the other LLM guys ignore the copyright and licensing on the works they ingest.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

nicce 2y ago

In many countries you even can't claim copyright for the output of the AI to use license like this.

hannasanarion 2y ago
Copyright on the software that produces something isn't the same as copyright on the output. The library's copyright is intact, as normal, and they can control who uses it and how just like any other software. The output of AI systems is not copyrightable, but the systems themselves are, and associated EULAs are valid.
- nicce 2y ago
  Is that so certain? To be able to make claims for what you can use the output, can you do it without making any claims for about control and ownership of the output? Of course, they can revoke your right to use the software, but if it goes to court, that would be interesting case.
  - wrs 2y ago
    If there’s no copyright in the weights to begin with, the only restrictions you have are the ones you agreed to when you accepted the license agreement. Find the weights somewhere else and you don’t have to worry about the license. I don’t know why there isn’t more discussion on this point and people just assume there’s an underlying copyright basis to the licensing of weights. As far as I know that isn’t settled at all.
wakawaka28 2y ago
I'd like to know how they think they'll prove I didn't write whatever code I generate. Unless it is a direct copy of something else available to the investigator, good luck.
numpad0 2y ago
I think it's not important if this is enforcable, this license sounds to me like a warning that the output may be radioactive, which is where AI copyright discussions are slowly shifting towards.

belter 2y ago

And nobody will sue anybody because suing means...discovery....

aitchnyu 2y ago
Umm, are you saying its mutually assured destruction for the book pirate (AI company) and api wrapper startup?

hehdhdjehehegwv 2y ago

So basically I, as an open source author, had my code eaten up by Mistral without my consent, but if I want to use their code model I’m subject to a bunch of restrictions that benefit their bottom line? The problem these AI companies have is they live in a glass house and they can’t throw IP rocks around without breaking their own “your content is our training data” foundation. They only reason I can think of that Google doesn’t go after OpenAI for scraping YouTube is then they’d put themselves in the same crosshairs, and may set a precedent they’d also be bound by. Given the model is “on the web” I have the same rights as Mistral to use anything online however I want without regard for IP, right? Utter absurdity.

htrp 2y ago
call it an Enterprise poison pill.
- hehdhdjehehegwv 2y ago
  But a pill they also have to swallow.
  - dodslaser 2y ago
    Enterprise suicide cult.
IshKebab 2y ago
> So basically I, as an open source author, had my code eaten up by Mistral without my consent Not necessarily. You consented to people reading your code and learning from it when you posted it on Github. Whether or not there's an issue with AI doing the same remains to be settled. It certainly isn't clear cut that separate consent would be required.
- hehdhdjehehegwv 2y ago
  I did not give consent to train on my software and the license does not allow commercial use of it. They have taken my code and now are dictating how I can use their derived work. Personally I think these tools are useful, but if the data comes from the commons the model should also belong to the commons. This is just another attempt to gain private benefit from public work. There are legal issues to be resolved, and there is an explosion of lawsuits already, but the fact pattern is simple and applies to nearly all closed-source AI companies.

nullc 2y ago

Five years ago it would not have been at all controversial that these weights would not be copyrightable in the US, they're machine generated output on third party data. Yet somehow we've entered a weird timeline where obvious copyfraud is fine, by the same entities that are at best on the line of engaging in commercial copyright infringement at a hereto unforeseen scale.

esperent 2y ago
It's clear that when enough money and power is on the line - and fear that other countries will overtake them - all countries are willing to conveniently and pragmatically ignore their laws. I don't think this is any kind of surprise.

rldjbpin 2y ago

should it be morally ok to not follow these kinds of license, maybe except when you are selling a service without making any changes? i wonder what people visiting this site thinks about this.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]