5 ms·

When LLMs are based on stolen work and violate GPL terms, which should be already illegal, it's very much okay to be furious about the fact that they additional

When LLMs are based on stolen work and violate GPL terms, which should be already illegal, it's very much okay to be furious about the fact that they additionally ruin respective business models of open source, thanks to which they are possible in the guest place.

charcircuit 9mo ago
>“Free software” means software that respects users' freedom and community. Roughly, it means that the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html Being able to learn from the code is a core part of the ideology embedded into the GPL. Not only that, but LLMs learning from code is fair use.
- jeroenhd 9mo ago
  That freedom for many free licenses comes with the caveat that you provide basic attribution and the same freedom to your users. LLMs don't (cannot, by design) provide attribution, nor do LLM users have the freedom to run most of these models themselves.
  - charcircuit 9mo ago
    That is if you redistribute or make a derivative work. Applying learnings you made from such software does not require such attribution.
    - pessimizer 9mo ago
      In the first sentence "you" actually refers to you, a person, in the second you're intentionally cheating and applying it to a machine doing a mechanical transformation. One so mechanical that different LLMs trained on the same material would have output that closely resembles each other. The only indispensable part is the resource you're pirating. A resource that was given to you under the most generous of terms, which you ignored and decided to be guided by a purpose that you've assigned to those terms that embodies an intention that has been specifically denied. You do this because it allows you to do what you want to do. It's motivated "reasoning." Without this "FOSS is for learning" thing you think overrules the license, you are no more justified in training off of it without complying with the terms than training on pirated Microsoft code without complying with their terms. People who work at Microsoft learn on Microsoft code, too, but you don't feel entitled to that.
      - anileated 9mo ago
        I'm not sure it's always bad intent. People often don't get that "machine learning" is a compound industrial term where "learning" is not literally "learning" just like "machine" is not literally "machine". So it's sort of sentient when it comes to training and generating derivative works but when you ask "if it's actually sentient then are you in the business of abusing sentient beings?" then it's just a tool.
    - anileated 9mo ago
      Here we are talking about derivative works, not "learnings".
  - anileated 9mo ago
    I think LLMs could provide attribution. Either running a second hidden prompt (like, who said this?) or by doing reverse query on the training dataset. Say if they do it with even 98% accuracy it would probably be good enough. Especially for bits of info where there's very few or even just one source. Of course it would be more expensive to get them to do it. But if it was required to provide attribution with some % accuracy, plus we identified and addressed other problems like GPL washing/piracy of our intellectual property/people going insane with chatbots/opinion manipulation and hidden advertisement, then at some point commercial LLMs could become actually not bad for us.
- catlifeonmars 9mo ago
  > Being able to learn from the code is a core part of the ideology embedded into the GPL. I have to imagine this ideology was developed with humans in mind. > but LLMs learning from code is fair use If by “fair use” you mean the legal term of art, that question is still very much up in the air. If by “fair use” you mean “I think it is fair” then sure, that’s an opinion you’re entitled to have.
  - charcircuit 9mo ago
    >question is still very much up in the air It is not up in the air at all. It's completely transformative.
    - catlifeonmars 9mo ago
      Last time I checked, there are still undecided cases wrt fair use. Sure, it’s looking favorable for LLM training, but it’s definitely still up in the air. > it’s completely transformative IANAL, but apparently hinges on how the training material is acquired
      - bawolff 9mo ago
        > IANAL, but apparently hinges on how the training material is acquired That doesn't make sense. You are either transforming something or you are not. There might be other legal considerations based on how you acquired, but it doesn't affect if something is transformative.
        catlifeonmars 9mo ago
        So there are mixed messages, per my understanding. Kadrey v Meta seems to favor the transformative nature. Bartz v Anthropic went to summary judgement but the court expressed skepticism that the use in that case was “transformative”. We won’t know because of the settlement. Again, IANAL, so take this with a big grain of salt.
    - anileated 9mo ago
embedding-shape 9mo ago
> the fact that they additionally ruin respective business models of open source The what now? Open source doesn't have a business model, it's all about the licensing. FOSS is about making code available to others, for any purpose, and that still works the same as 20 years ago when I got started. Some seem to wake up to what "for any purpose" actually mean, but for many of us that's quite the point, that we don't make choices for others.
- anileated 9mo ago
  If something is not technically illegal that does not mean it cannot be bad. Like I said, there is a part that should be illegal, and then part where that's used to additionally harm one of the ways that OSS can be sustainable. The second part on its own is not illegal but adds to damages and is perfectly okay to condemn. Open source software can have business models, it's one of the ways it can be sustainable. It can work like, for example, the code is made available (for any purpose) and the core maintainer company provides services, like with Nginx (BSD). Or there is an open-source software, and companies create paid products and services on top while respecting the terms of that software and contributing back, like with Linux (GPL) and SUSE/Red Hat.
  - embedding-shape 9mo ago
    > If something is not technically illegal that does not mean it cannot be bad. Ok? I agree, but unsure what exactly that's relevant to here in our discussion. > Open source software can have business models I believe "businesses" are the ones who have "business models", and some of those chose to use open source as part of their business model. But "open source" the ecosystem has nothing to do with that, it's for-profit companies trying to use and leverage open source, rather than the open source community suddenly wanting to do something completely different from what it's been doing since inception.
    - anileated 9mo ago
      > unsure what exactly that's relevant to here in our discussion. I'll remind then. Our discussion follows the top statement "It seems open source loses the most from AI". As far as I understand nobody narrowed the context to "what is currently legal". Something can be technically legal and still harmful to open source. Also, laws are never perfect and sometimes they need to be updated. (For example, I know that a number of people would say US abducting and detaining citizens and brutally deporting immigrants is not illegal, but if it's technically legal does that make it OK?) > what it's been doing since inception. At inception open source was mostly personal side projects for funsies (like Linux) sponsored by maintainer having a dayjob. The big leap happened when copyleft licenses made it such that success of a big commercial company building products on open-source projects would directly improve these open-source projects. And it's nothing new, it happened long time ago. The desire for volunteer contributions to codebase to remain for public benefit in perpetuity is exactly the point of strong copyleft, and it's exactly what's being circumvented by LLM washing. The fact that these LLMs subsequently also harm open source communities adds insult to injury.

charcircuit 9mo ago

>“Free software” means software that respects users' freedom and community. Roughly, it means that the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html Being able to learn from the code is a core part of the ideology embedded into the GPL. Not only that, but LLMs learning from code is fair use.

jeroenhd 9mo ago
That freedom for many free licenses comes with the caveat that you provide basic attribution and the same freedom to your users. LLMs don't (cannot, by design) provide attribution, nor do LLM users have the freedom to run most of these models themselves.
- charcircuit 9mo ago
  That is if you redistribute or make a derivative work. Applying learnings you made from such software does not require such attribution.
  - pessimizer 9mo ago
    In the first sentence "you" actually refers to you, a person, in the second you're intentionally cheating and applying it to a machine doing a mechanical transformation. One so mechanical that different LLMs trained on the same material would have output that closely resembles each other. The only indispensable part is the resource you're pirating. A resource that was given to you under the most generous of terms, which you ignored and decided to be guided by a purpose that you've assigned to those terms that embodies an intention that has been specifically denied. You do this because it allows you to do what you want to do. It's motivated "reasoning." Without this "FOSS is for learning" thing you think overrules the license, you are no more justified in training off of it without complying with the terms than training on pirated Microsoft code without complying with their terms. People who work at Microsoft learn on Microsoft code, too, but you don't feel entitled to that.
    - anileated 9mo ago
      I'm not sure it's always bad intent. People often don't get that "machine learning" is a compound industrial term where "learning" is not literally "learning" just like "machine" is not literally "machine". So it's sort of sentient when it comes to training and generating derivative works but when you ask "if it's actually sentient then are you in the business of abusing sentient beings?" then it's just a tool.
  - anileated 9mo ago
    Here we are talking about derivative works, not "learnings".
- anileated 9mo ago
  I think LLMs could provide attribution. Either running a second hidden prompt (like, who said this?) or by doing reverse query on the training dataset. Say if they do it with even 98% accuracy it would probably be good enough. Especially for bits of info where there's very few or even just one source. Of course it would be more expensive to get them to do it. But if it was required to provide attribution with some % accuracy, plus we identified and addressed other problems like GPL washing/piracy of our intellectual property/people going insane with chatbots/opinion manipulation and hidden advertisement, then at some point commercial LLMs could become actually not bad for us.
catlifeonmars 9mo ago
> Being able to learn from the code is a core part of the ideology embedded into the GPL. I have to imagine this ideology was developed with humans in mind. > but LLMs learning from code is fair use If by “fair use” you mean the legal term of art, that question is still very much up in the air. If by “fair use” you mean “I think it is fair” then sure, that’s an opinion you’re entitled to have.
- charcircuit 9mo ago
  >question is still very much up in the air It is not up in the air at all. It's completely transformative.
  - catlifeonmars 9mo ago
    Last time I checked, there are still undecided cases wrt fair use. Sure, it’s looking favorable for LLM training, but it’s definitely still up in the air. > it’s completely transformative IANAL, but apparently hinges on how the training material is acquired
    - bawolff 9mo ago
      > IANAL, but apparently hinges on how the training material is acquired That doesn't make sense. You are either transforming something or you are not. There might be other legal considerations based on how you acquired, but it doesn't affect if something is transformative.
      - catlifeonmars 9mo ago
        So there are mixed messages, per my understanding. Kadrey v Meta seems to favor the transformative nature. Bartz v Anthropic went to summary judgement but the court expressed skepticism that the use in that case was “transformative”. We won’t know because of the settlement. Again, IANAL, so take this with a big grain of salt.
  - anileated 9mo ago

embedding-shape 9mo ago

> the fact that they additionally ruin respective business models of open source The what now? Open source doesn't have a business model, it's all about the licensing. FOSS is about making code available to others, for any purpose, and that still works the same as 20 years ago when I got started. Some seem to wake up to what "for any purpose" actually mean, but for many of us that's quite the point, that we don't make choices for others.

anileated 9mo ago
If something is not technically illegal that does not mean it cannot be bad. Like I said, there is a part that should be illegal, and then part where that's used to additionally harm one of the ways that OSS can be sustainable. The second part on its own is not illegal but adds to damages and is perfectly okay to condemn. Open source software can have business models, it's one of the ways it can be sustainable. It can work like, for example, the code is made available (for any purpose) and the core maintainer company provides services, like with Nginx (BSD). Or there is an open-source software, and companies create paid products and services on top while respecting the terms of that software and contributing back, like with Linux (GPL) and SUSE/Red Hat.
- embedding-shape 9mo ago
  > If something is not technically illegal that does not mean it cannot be bad. Ok? I agree, but unsure what exactly that's relevant to here in our discussion. > Open source software can have business models I believe "businesses" are the ones who have "business models", and some of those chose to use open source as part of their business model. But "open source" the ecosystem has nothing to do with that, it's for-profit companies trying to use and leverage open source, rather than the open source community suddenly wanting to do something completely different from what it's been doing since inception.
  - anileated 9mo ago
    > unsure what exactly that's relevant to here in our discussion. I'll remind then. Our discussion follows the top statement "It seems open source loses the most from AI". As far as I understand nobody narrowed the context to "what is currently legal". Something can be technically legal and still harmful to open source. Also, laws are never perfect and sometimes they need to be updated. (For example, I know that a number of people would say US abducting and detaining citizens and brutally deporting immigrants is not illegal, but if it's technically legal does that make it OK?) > what it's been doing since inception. At inception open source was mostly personal side projects for funsies (like Linux) sponsored by maintainer having a dayjob. The big leap happened when copyleft licenses made it such that success of a big commercial company building products on open-source projects would directly improve these open-source projects. And it's nothing new, it happened long time ago. The desire for volunteer contributions to codebase to remain for public benefit in perpetuity is exactly the point of strong copyleft, and it's exactly what's being circumvented by LLM washing. The fact that these LLMs subsequently also harm open source communities adds insult to injury.