6 ms·
We need a new license that forbids all training. That is the only way to stop big corporations from doing this.
by phplovesong 11mo ago
We need a new license that forbids all training. That is the only way to stop big corporations from doing this.
- WithinReason 11mo agoWouldn't it be still legal to train on the data due to fair use?
- gus_massa 11mo agoI don't think it's fair use, but everyone on Earth disagree with me. So even with the standard default licence that prohibits absolutely everything, the humanity-1 consider it fair use.
- justin_murray 11mo agoHonest question: why don’t you think it is fair use? I can see how it pushes the boundary, but I can’t lay out logic that it’s not. The code has been publish for the public to see. I’m always allowed to read it, remember it, tell my friends about it. Certainly, this is what the author hoped I would do. Otherwise, wouldn’t they have kept it to themselves? These agents are just doing a more sophisticated, faster version of that same act.
- mixedbit 11mo agoBefore LLMs programmers had pretty good intuition what GPL license allowed for. It is of course clear that you cannot release a closed source program with GPL code integrated into it. I think it was also quite clear, that you cannot legally incorporate GPL code into such a program, by making changes here and there, renaming some stuff, and moving things around, but this is pretty much what LLMs are doing. When humans do it intentionally, it is violation of the license, when it is automated and done on a huge scale, is it really fair use?
- WithinReason 11mo ago> this is pretty much what LLMs are doing I think this is the part where we disagree. Have you used LLMs, or is this based on something you read?
- mixedbit 11mo agoDo you honestly believe there are people on this board who haven't used LLMs? Ridiculing someone you disagree with is a poor way to make an argument.
- WithinReason 11mo agolots of people on this board are philosophically opposed to them so it was a reasonable question, especially in light of your description of them
- gus_massa 11mo agoSome project like Wine forbids you to contribute if you ever have seen the source of MS Windows [1]. The meatball inside your head is tainted. I don't remember the exact case now, but someone was cloning a program (Lotus123 -> Quatro or Excel???). They printed every single screen and made a team write a full specification in English. Later another separate team look at the screenshots and text and reimplement it. Apparently meatballs can get tainted, but the plain English text loophole was safe enough. [1] From https://gitlab.winehq.org/wine/wine/-/wikis/Developer-FAQ#who-cant-contribute-to-wine https://gitlab.winehq.org/wine/wine/-/wikis/Developer-FAQ#wh... > Who can't contribute to Wine? > Some people cannot contribute to Wine because of potential copyright violation. This would be anyone who has seen Microsoft Windows source code (stolen, under an NDA, disassembled, or otherwise). There are some exceptions for the source code of add-on components (ATL, MFC, msvcrt); see the next question.
- seanmcdirmid 11mo ago> I don't remember the exact case now, but someone was cloning a program (Lotus123 -> Quatro or Excel???). They printed every single screen and made a team write a full specification in English. Later another separate team look at the screenshots and text and reimplement it. Apparently meatballs can get tainted, but the plain English text loophole was safe enough. This is close to how I would actually recommend reimplementing a legacy system (owned by the re-implementer) with AI SWE. Not to avoid copyright, but to get the AI to build up everything it needs to maintain the system over a long period of time. The separate team is just a new AI instance whose context doesn’t contain the legacy the code (because that would pollute the new result). The amplify isn’t too apt though since there is a difference between having something in your context (which you can control and is very targeted) and the code that the model was trained on (which all AI instance will share unless you use different models, and anyways, it isn’t supposed to be targeted).
- conartist6 11mo agoThe fair use prong that's problematic is that the fair use can't decimate the value of the original work. It's the difference between me imitating your art style for a personal project and me making 1,000,000 copies of your art so that your art isn't worth much anymore. One is a fair use, the other is exploitative extraction
- deleted 11mo ago[deleted]
- LtWorf 11mo agoJust corporations, their shills, and people who think llms are god's gift to humanity disagree with you.
- cryptonector 11mo agoNot if it's an EULA and you make the bot click through an "I agree" button.
- James_K 11mo agoWould such a license fall under the definition of free software? Difficult to say. Counter-proposition: a license which permits training if the model is fully open.
- Orygin 11mo agoMy next project will be released under a GPL-like license with exactly this condition added. If you train a model on this code, the model must be open source & open weights
- fouronnes3 11mo agoNot sure why the FSF or any other organization hasn't released a license like this years ago already.
- amszmidt 11mo agoBecause it would violate freedom zero. Adding such terms to the GNU GPL would also mean that you can remove them, they would be considered "further restrictions" and can be removed (see section 7 of the GNU GPL version 3).
- Orygin 11mo agoFreedom 0 is not violated. GPL includes restrictions for how you can use the software, yet it's still open source. You can do whatever you want with the software, BUT you must do a few things. For GPL it's keeping the license, distributing the source, etc. Why can't we have a different license with the same kind of restrictions, but also "Models trained on this licensed work must be open source". Edit: Plus the license would not be "GPL+restriction" but a new license altogether, which includes the requirements for models to be open.
- amszmidt 11mo agoThat is not really correct, the GNU GPL doesn't have any terms whatsoever on how you can use, or modify the program to do things. You're free to make a GNU GPL program do anything (i.e., use). I suggest a careful reading of the GNU GPL, or the definition of Free Software, where this is carefully explained.
- maxloh 11mo agoTo my understanding, if the material is publicly available or obtained legally (i.e., not pirated), then training a model with it falls under fair use, at least in the US and some other jurisdictions. If the training is established as fair use, the underlying license doesn't really matter. The term you added would likely be void or deemed unenforceable if someone ever brought it to a court.
- justin_murray 11mo agoThis is at least murky, since a lot of pirated material is “publicly available”. Certainly some has ended up in the training data.
- michaelmrose 11mo agoIt isn't? You have to break the law to get it. It's publicly available like your TV is if I were to break into your house and avoid getting shot.
- basilgohar 11mo agoThat isn't even remotely a sensible analogy. Equating copyright violation with stealing physical property is an extremely failed metaphor.
- tpmoney 11mo agoOne of the craziest experiences in this "post AI" world is to see how quickly a lot of people in the "information wants to be free" or "hell yes I would download a car" crowds pivoted to "stop downloading my car, just because its on a public and openly available website doesn't make it free"
- voidfunc 11mo ago"Rules for thee, but not for me"
- 11mo ago
- scotty79 11mo agoWe need a ruling that LLM generated code enters public domain automatically and can't be covered by any license.
- palata 11mo agoBut then we would need a way to prove that some code was LLM generated, right? Like if I copy-paste GPL-licenced code, the way you realise that I copy-pasted it is because 1) you can see it and 2) the GPL-licenced code exists. But when code is LLM generated, it is "new". If I claim I wrote it, how would you oppose that?
- chii 11mo agoyou could have the inverse - proof that the code was _not_ LLM generated. It's like a mark of origin/country of origin for produce.
- palata 11mo agoHow would you do it? How can you prove that the message you sent was not LLM generated?
- chii 11mo agoThe same way a current product advertises itself as hand-crafted, or organic, etc. Just pure trust. And if you can charge a higher price because this is considered valuable by your customers, then you get to sustain it as a business.
- michaelmrose 11mo agoLaws exist to protect those who make and have money. If trillions could be made harvesting your kids kidneys it would be legal.
- basilgohar 11mo agoIt's done extrajudicially in warzones such as Palestine where hostages are returned from Israeli jails, with missing organs, dead or alive [0]. [0] https://factually.co/fact-checks/justice/evidence-investigations-israeli-organ-harvesting-allegations-516251 https://factually.co/fact-checks/justice/evidence-investigat...
- munchler 11mo agoBy that logic, humans would also be prevented from “training” on (i.e. learning from) such code. Hard to see how this could be a valid license.
- psychoslave 11mo agoIsn’t it the very reason why we need cleanroom software engineering: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleanroom_software_engineering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleanroom_software_engineering
- mr_toad 11mo agoIf a human reads code, and then reproduces said code, that can be a copyright violation. But you can read the code, learn from it, and produce something totally different. The middle ground, where you read code, and produce something similar is a grey area.
- codedokode 11mo agoBad analogy, probably made up by capitalists to confuse people. ML models cannot and do not learn. "learning" is a name of a process, when model developer downloads pirated material and processes it with an algorithm (computes parameters from it). Also, humans do not need to read million of pirated books to learn to talk. And a human artist doesn't need to steal million pictures to learn to draw.
- 1gn15 11mo ago> And a human artist doesn't need to steal million pictures to learn to draw. They... do? Not just pictures, but also real life data, which is a lot more data than an average modern ML system has. An average artist has probably seen- stolen millions of pictures from their social media feeds over their lifetime. Also, claiming to be anti-capitalist while defending one of the most offensive types of private property there is. The whole point of anti-capitalism is being anti private property. And copyright is private property because it gives you power over others. You must be against copyright and be against the concept of "stealing pictures" if you are to be an anti-capitalist.
- BeFlatXIII 11mo agoHow is that enforceable against the fly-by-night startups?
- mr_toad 11mo agoFair use doesn’t need a license, so it doesn’t matter what you put in the license. Generally speaking licenses give rights (they literally grant license). They can’t take rights away, only the legislature can do that.
- anticensor 11mo agoExclusive or co-exclusive licences can nullify your default fair use in certain jurisdictions.
- tensor 11mo agoSo if you put this hypothetical license on spam emails, then spam filters can't train to recognize them? I'm sure ad companies would LOVE it.
- conartist6 11mo agoWhy forbid it when you could do exactly what this post suggests: go explicit and say that by including this copyrighted material in AI training you consent to release of the model. And you clarify that the terms are contractual, and that training the model on data represents implicit acceptance of the terms.
- themafia 11mo agoTaken to an extreme: "Why forbid selling drugs when you can just put a warning label on them? And you could clarify that an overdose is lethal." It doesn't solve any problems and just pushes enforcement actions into a hopelessly diffuse space. Meanwhile the cartel continues to profit and small time users are temporarily incarcerated.
- d0mine 11mo ago> cartel continues to profit It doesn't follow. The reverse is more likely: If you end prohibition, you end the mafia.
- cryptonector 11mo agoSo an EULA?