3 ms·

It's not free. There is a license attached. One you are supposed to follow and not doing so is against the law.

by sirwhinesalot 10mo ago

anonym29 10mo ago
[flagged]
- michaelsshaw 10mo ago
  We spread free software for multiple purposes, one of them being the free software ethos. People using that for training proprietary models is antithetical to such ideas. It's also an interesting double standard, wherein if I were to steal OpenAI's models, no AI worshippers would have any issue condemning my action, but when a large company clearly violates the license terms of free software, you give them a pass.
  - ronsor 10mo ago
    > I were to steal OpenAI's models, no AI worshippers would have any issue condemning my action If GPT-5 were "open sourced", I don't think the vast majority of AI users would seriously object.
    - sirwhinesalot 10mo ago
      OpenAI got really pissy about DeepSeek using other LLMs to train though. Which is funny since that's a much clearer case of "learning from" than outright compressing all open source code into a giant pile of weights by learning a low-dimensional probability distribution of token sequences.
  - anonym29 10mo ago
    I can't speak for anyone else, but if you were to leak weights for OpenAI's frontier models, I'd offer to hug you and donate money to you. Information wants to be free.
- sirwhinesalot 10mo ago
  I'm not whining in this case, just pointing out "they gave it out for free" is completely false, at the very least for the GNU types. It was always meant to come with plenty of strings attached, and when those strings were dodged new strings were added (GPL3, AGPL). If I had a photographic memory and I used it to replicate parts of GPLed software verbatim while erasing the license, I could not excuse it in court that I simply "learned from" the examples. Some companies outright bar their employees from reading GPLed code because they see it as too high of a liability. But if a computer does it, then suddenly it is a-ok. Apparently according to the courts too. If you're going to allow copyright laundering, at least allow it for both humans and computers. It's only fair.
  - shkkmo 10mo ago
    > If I had a photographic memory and I used it to replicate parts of GPLed software verbatim while erasing the license, I could not excuse it in court that I simply "learned from" the examples. Right, because you would have done more than learning, you would have then gone past learning and used that learning to reproduce the work. It works exactly the same for a LLM. Training the model on content you have legal access to is fine. Aftwards, somone using that model to produce a replica of that content is engaged in copyright enfringement. You seem set on conflating the act of learning with the act of reproduction. You are allowed to learn from copyrighted works you have legal access to, you just aren't allowed to duplicate those works.
    - sirwhinesalot 10mo ago
      The problem is that it's not the user of the LLM doing the reproduction, the LLM provider is. The tokens the LLM is spitting out are coming from the LLM provider. It is the provider that is reproducing the code. If someone hires me to write some code, and I give them GPLed code (without telling them it is GPLed), I'm the one who broke the license, not them.
      - shkkmo 10mo ago
        > The problem is that it's not the user of the LLM doing the reproduction, the LLM provider is. I don't think this is legally true. The law isn't fully settled here, but things seem to be moving towards the LLM user being the holder of the copyright of any work produced by that user prompting the LLM. It seems like this would also place the enfringement onus on the user, not the provider. > If someone hires me to write some code, and I give them GPLed code (without telling them it is GPLed), I'm the one who broke the license, not them. If you produce code using a LLM, you (probably) own the copyright. If that code is already GPL'd, you would be the one engaged in enfringement.

It's not free. There is a license attached. One you are supposed to follow and not doing so is against the law.

anonym29 10mo ago

[flagged]

michaelsshaw 10mo ago
We spread free software for multiple purposes, one of them being the free software ethos. People using that for training proprietary models is antithetical to such ideas. It's also an interesting double standard, wherein if I were to steal OpenAI's models, no AI worshippers would have any issue condemning my action, but when a large company clearly violates the license terms of free software, you give them a pass.
- ronsor 10mo ago
  > I were to steal OpenAI's models, no AI worshippers would have any issue condemning my action If GPT-5 were "open sourced", I don't think the vast majority of AI users would seriously object.
  - sirwhinesalot 10mo ago
    OpenAI got really pissy about DeepSeek using other LLMs to train though. Which is funny since that's a much clearer case of "learning from" than outright compressing all open source code into a giant pile of weights by learning a low-dimensional probability distribution of token sequences.
- anonym29 10mo ago
  I can't speak for anyone else, but if you were to leak weights for OpenAI's frontier models, I'd offer to hug you and donate money to you. Information wants to be free.
sirwhinesalot 10mo ago
I'm not whining in this case, just pointing out "they gave it out for free" is completely false, at the very least for the GNU types. It was always meant to come with plenty of strings attached, and when those strings were dodged new strings were added (GPL3, AGPL). If I had a photographic memory and I used it to replicate parts of GPLed software verbatim while erasing the license, I could not excuse it in court that I simply "learned from" the examples. Some companies outright bar their employees from reading GPLed code because they see it as too high of a liability. But if a computer does it, then suddenly it is a-ok. Apparently according to the courts too. If you're going to allow copyright laundering, at least allow it for both humans and computers. It's only fair.
- shkkmo 10mo ago
  > If I had a photographic memory and I used it to replicate parts of GPLed software verbatim while erasing the license, I could not excuse it in court that I simply "learned from" the examples. Right, because you would have done more than learning, you would have then gone past learning and used that learning to reproduce the work. It works exactly the same for a LLM. Training the model on content you have legal access to is fine. Aftwards, somone using that model to produce a replica of that content is engaged in copyright enfringement. You seem set on conflating the act of learning with the act of reproduction. You are allowed to learn from copyrighted works you have legal access to, you just aren't allowed to duplicate those works.
  - sirwhinesalot 10mo ago
    The problem is that it's not the user of the LLM doing the reproduction, the LLM provider is. The tokens the LLM is spitting out are coming from the LLM provider. It is the provider that is reproducing the code. If someone hires me to write some code, and I give them GPLed code (without telling them it is GPLed), I'm the one who broke the license, not them.
    - shkkmo 10mo ago
      > The problem is that it's not the user of the LLM doing the reproduction, the LLM provider is. I don't think this is legally true. The law isn't fully settled here, but things seem to be moving towards the LLM user being the holder of the copyright of any work produced by that user prompting the LLM. It seems like this would also place the enfringement onus on the user, not the provider. > If someone hires me to write some code, and I give them GPLed code (without telling them it is GPLed), I'm the one who broke the license, not them. If you produce code using a LLM, you (probably) own the copyright. If that code is already GPL'd, you would be the one engaged in enfringement.