4 ms·

> 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. >

> 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
  1. It's decided by courts in US. Courts in US currently are very friendly to big tech. At this point if they deny this and say something that undermines this industry it's going to be a big economic blow, the country is way over-invested in this tech and its infrastructure. 2. "Transformative means fair" is the old idea from pre-LLM world. That's a different world. Now those IP laws are obsolete and need to be significantly updated.
TeMPOraL 9mo ago
> I have to imagine this ideology was developed with humans in mind. Actually, you don't have to. You just want to. N=1 but to me, LLMs are a perfect example of where the "ideology embedded into the GPL" benefits the world. The point of Free Software isn't for developers to sort-of-but-not-quite give away the code. The point of Free Software is to promote self-sufficient communities. GPL through its clauses, particularly the viral/forced reciprocity ones, prevents software itself from becoming an asset that can be rented, but it doesn't prevent business around software. RMS/FSF didn't make the common (among fans of OSS and Free Software) but dumb assumption that everyone wants or should be a developer - the license is structured to allow anyone to learn from and modify software, including paying a specialist to do it for them. Small-scale specialization and local markets are key for robust and healthy communities, and this is what Free Software ultimately encourages. LLMs becoming a cheap tool for modifying or writing software, even by non-specialists (or at least people who aren't domain experts), furthers those same goals, by increasing individual and communal self-sufficiency and self-reliance. (INB4: The fact that good LLMs are themselves owned by some multinational corps is irrelevant - much in the same way as cars are important tool for personal and communal self-sufficiently, despite being designed and manufactured by few large corporations. They're still tools ~anyone can use.)
- anileated 9mo ago
  Something can be illegal and it can be technically legal but at the same time pretty damn bad. There is the spirit and the letter of the law. They can never be in perfect agreement because as time goes bad guys tend to find new workarounds. So either the community behaves, or the letter becomes more and more complicated trying to be more specific about what should be illegal. Now that GPL is trivially washed by asking a black box trained on GPLed code to reproduce the same thing it might be inevitable, I suppose. > They're still tools ~anyone can use Of course, technology itself is not evil, just like crypto or nuclear fission. In this case when we are discussing harm we are almost always talking about commercial LLM operators. However, when the technology is mostly represented by that, it doesn't seem required to add a caveat every time LLMs are mentioned. There's hardly a good, truly fully open LLM that one can actually run on own hardware. Part of the reason is that hardly anyone, in the grand scheme of things, even has the hardware required. (Even if someone is a techie and has the money and knows how to set up a rig, which is almost nobody on grand scale of the things, now big LLM operators make sure there are no chips left for them.) So you can buy and own (and sell) a car, but ~anyone cannot buy and run an independent LLM (and obviously not train one). ~everyone ends up using a commercial LLM powered by some megacorp's infinite compute and scraping resources and paying that megacorp one way or another, ultimately helping them do more of the stuff that they do, like harming OSS.
bawolff 9mo ago
> I have to imagine this ideology was developed with humans in mind. Given what a big deal RMS made over not descriminating over purpose (https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html#run-the-program https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html#run-the-program) i think that is far from clear.

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
1. It's decided by courts in US. Courts in US currently are very friendly to big tech. At this point if they deny this and say something that undermines this industry it's going to be a big economic blow, the country is way over-invested in this tech and its infrastructure. 2. "Transformative means fair" is the old idea from pre-LLM world. That's a different world. Now those IP laws are obsolete and need to be significantly updated.

TeMPOraL 9mo ago

> I have to imagine this ideology was developed with humans in mind. Actually, you don't have to. You just want to. N=1 but to me, LLMs are a perfect example of where the "ideology embedded into the GPL" benefits the world. The point of Free Software isn't for developers to sort-of-but-not-quite give away the code. The point of Free Software is to promote self-sufficient communities. GPL through its clauses, particularly the viral/forced reciprocity ones, prevents software itself from becoming an asset that can be rented, but it doesn't prevent business around software. RMS/FSF didn't make the common (among fans of OSS and Free Software) but dumb assumption that everyone wants or should be a developer - the license is structured to allow anyone to learn from and modify software, including paying a specialist to do it for them. Small-scale specialization and local markets are key for robust and healthy communities, and this is what Free Software ultimately encourages. LLMs becoming a cheap tool for modifying or writing software, even by non-specialists (or at least people who aren't domain experts), furthers those same goals, by increasing individual and communal self-sufficiency and self-reliance. (INB4: The fact that good LLMs are themselves owned by some multinational corps is irrelevant - much in the same way as cars are important tool for personal and communal self-sufficiently, despite being designed and manufactured by few large corporations. They're still tools ~anyone can use.)

anileated 9mo ago
Something can be illegal and it can be technically legal but at the same time pretty damn bad. There is the spirit and the letter of the law. They can never be in perfect agreement because as time goes bad guys tend to find new workarounds. So either the community behaves, or the letter becomes more and more complicated trying to be more specific about what should be illegal. Now that GPL is trivially washed by asking a black box trained on GPLed code to reproduce the same thing it might be inevitable, I suppose. > They're still tools ~anyone can use Of course, technology itself is not evil, just like crypto or nuclear fission. In this case when we are discussing harm we are almost always talking about commercial LLM operators. However, when the technology is mostly represented by that, it doesn't seem required to add a caveat every time LLMs are mentioned. There's hardly a good, truly fully open LLM that one can actually run on own hardware. Part of the reason is that hardly anyone, in the grand scheme of things, even has the hardware required. (Even if someone is a techie and has the money and knows how to set up a rig, which is almost nobody on grand scale of the things, now big LLM operators make sure there are no chips left for them.) So you can buy and own (and sell) a car, but ~anyone cannot buy and run an independent LLM (and obviously not train one). ~everyone ends up using a commercial LLM powered by some megacorp's infinite compute and scraping resources and paying that megacorp one way or another, ultimately helping them do more of the stuff that they do, like harming OSS.

bawolff 9mo ago

> I have to imagine this ideology was developed with humans in mind. Given what a big deal RMS made over not descriminating over purpose (https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html#run-the-program https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html#run-the-program) i think that is far from clear.