3 ms·

In a sane world I would have agreed but in the US at least I am not certain this is still true: In Bartz v. Anthropic, Judge Alsup expressed his views that the

by pera 10mo ago

In a sane world I would have agreed but in the US at least I am not certain this is still true: In Bartz v. Anthropic, Judge Alsup expressed his views that the work of an LLM is equivalent to the one of a person, see around page 12 where he argues that human recalling things from memory and AI inference are effectively the same from a legal perspective https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/jnvwbgqlzpw/ANTHROPIC%20fair%20use.pdf https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/jnvwbgqlzpw/... To me this makes the clean-room distinction very hard to assert, what am I missing?

singpolyma3 10mo ago
If a human reads the code and then writes an implementation this is not clean room and the LLM would in most cases be equivalent to that. Clean room requires the person writing the implementation do have no special knowledge of the original implementation.
- pera 10mo ago
  Could you share a source for this definition? As far as I know it means no having access to the code only during the implementation of the new project
  - pabs3 10mo ago
    Clean room reverse engineering always involves a wall of some kind between the person figuring out how the tech works, and the person creating the new tech. Usually the wall is only allowing one-way communication via a specification of the behavior of the old tech, perhaps reviewed by a lawyer to ensure nothing copyrighted leaks across. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean-room_design https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean-room_design https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_wall https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_wall
    - pera 10mo ago
      Thanks for those links, I read a couple of the cited comments on those cases and still cannot find any mentions of restrictions for engineers who at some point in the past had access to the code. Nordstrom Consulting v. M&S Technologies, which is possibly the most relevant case, describes a process for developing under a clean room environment and from what I understand it seems to focus on isolation of engineering teams and resources (except when required for interoperability). I did not find mentions of assessing the cohort of engineers for prior access to the copyrighted material but if I have missed that please let me know. I also wanted to say that I am not asking this because I am thinking to start an unethical license laundering business, I am only trying to understand the meaning of making LLMs legally equivalent to human workers.

by pera 10mo ago

singpolyma3 10mo ago

If a human reads the code and then writes an implementation this is not clean room and the LLM would in most cases be equivalent to that. Clean room requires the person writing the implementation do have no special knowledge of the original implementation.

pera 10mo ago
Could you share a source for this definition? As far as I know it means no having access to the code only during the implementation of the new project
- pabs3 10mo ago
  Clean room reverse engineering always involves a wall of some kind between the person figuring out how the tech works, and the person creating the new tech. Usually the wall is only allowing one-way communication via a specification of the behavior of the old tech, perhaps reviewed by a lawyer to ensure nothing copyrighted leaks across. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean-room_design https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean-room_design https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_wall https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_wall
  - pera 10mo ago
    Thanks for those links, I read a couple of the cited comments on those cases and still cannot find any mentions of restrictions for engineers who at some point in the past had access to the code. Nordstrom Consulting v. M&S Technologies, which is possibly the most relevant case, describes a process for developing under a clean room environment and from what I understand it seems to focus on isolation of engineering teams and resources (except when required for interoperability). I did not find mentions of assessing the cohort of engineers for prior access to the copyrighted material but if I have missed that please let me know. I also wanted to say that I am not asking this because I am thinking to start an unethical license laundering business, I am only trying to understand the meaning of making LLMs legally equivalent to human workers.