30 ms·

What does derivative mean here? Because IMO it means that the existing work was used as input. So if you used a LLM and it was trained on the existing work, tha

What does derivative mean here? Because IMO it means that the existing work was used as input. So if you used a LLM and it was trained on the existing work, that's a derivative work. If you rot13 encode something as input, so you can't personally read it, and then a device decides to rot13 on it again and output it, that's a derivative work.

nicole_express 7mo ago
Of course, the problem with this interpretation is that all modern LLMs are derivatives from huge amounts of text under completely different licenses, including "All rights reserved", and therefore can not be used for any purpose. I'm not sure how you square the circle of "it's alright to use the LLM to write code, unless the code is a rewrite of an open source project to change its license".
- JoshTriplett 7mo ago
  > Of course, the problem with this interpretation is that all modern LLMs are derivatives from huge amounts of text under completely different licenses, including "All rights reserved", and therefore can not be used for any purpose. > I'm not sure how you square the circle of "it's alright to use the LLM to write code You seem like you're on the cusp of stating the obvious correct conclusion: it isn't.
wizzwizz4 7mo ago
See also: https://monolith.sourceforge.net/ https://monolith.sourceforge.net/, which seeks to ask the question: > But how far away from direct and explicit representations do we have to go before copyright no longer applies?
ghostpepper 7mo ago
As a cynical person I assume all the frontier LLMs were trained on datasets that include every open source project, but as a thought experiment, if an LLM was trained on a dataset that included every open source project _execept_ chardet, do you think said LLM would still be able to easily implement something very similar?
- spullara 7mo ago
  There is no doubt in my mind that it could still do it.
spullara 7mo ago
In order for it to be creatively derivative you would need to copy the structure, logic, organization, and sequence of operations not just reimplement the functionality. It is pretty clear in this case that wasn't done.
- cubefox 7mo ago
  It's not clear at all.
bmcahren 7mo ago
LLMs do not encode nor encrypt their training data. The fact they can recite training data is a defect not a default. You can understand this more simply by calculating the model size as an inverse of a fantasy compression algorithm that is 50% better than SOTA. You'll find you'd still be missing 80-90% of the training data even if it were as much of a stochastic parrot as you may be implying. The outputs of AI are not derivative just because they saw training data including the original library. Then onto prompting: 'He fed only the API and (his) test suite to Claude' This is Google v Oracle all over again - are APIs copyrightable?
- satvikpendem 7mo ago
  > This is Google v Oracle all over again - are APIs copyrightable? Yes this is the best way to ask the question. If I take a public facing API and reimplement everything, whether it's by human or machine, it should be sufficient. After all, that's what Google did, and it's not like their engineers never read a single line of the Java source code. Even in "clean room" implementations, a human might still have remembered or recalled a previous implementation of some function they had encountered before.
- thunderfork 7mo ago
  I find the "compression" argument not very strong, both because copyright still applies to (very) lossy codecs (e.g. your 16kbps Opus file of Thriller infringes, even if the original 192khz/32bit wav file was 12,000kbps), and because copyright still applies to transformed derivative works (a tiny midi file of Thriller might still be enough for the Jackson's label to get you)
- azakai 7mo ago
  > LLMs do not encode nor encrypt their training data. The fact they can recite training data is a defect not a default. About this specific point, it is unclear how much of a defect memorization actually is - there are also reasons to see it as necessary for effective learning. This link explains it well: https://infinitefaculty.substack.com/p/memorization-vs-generalization-in https://infinitefaculty.substack.com/p/memorization-vs-gener...
- 7mo ago
satvikpendem 7mo ago
> Because IMO it means that the existing work was used as input That's your opinion (since you said "IMO"), not the actual legal definition.

nicole_express 7mo ago

Of course, the problem with this interpretation is that all modern LLMs are derivatives from huge amounts of text under completely different licenses, including "All rights reserved", and therefore can not be used for any purpose. I'm not sure how you square the circle of "it's alright to use the LLM to write code, unless the code is a rewrite of an open source project to change its license".

JoshTriplett 7mo ago
> Of course, the problem with this interpretation is that all modern LLMs are derivatives from huge amounts of text under completely different licenses, including "All rights reserved", and therefore can not be used for any purpose. > I'm not sure how you square the circle of "it's alright to use the LLM to write code You seem like you're on the cusp of stating the obvious correct conclusion: it isn't.

wizzwizz4 7mo ago

See also: https://monolith.sourceforge.net/ https://monolith.sourceforge.net/, which seeks to ask the question: > But how far away from direct and explicit representations do we have to go before copyright no longer applies?

ghostpepper 7mo ago

As a cynical person I assume all the frontier LLMs were trained on datasets that include every open source project, but as a thought experiment, if an LLM was trained on a dataset that included every open source project _execept_ chardet, do you think said LLM would still be able to easily implement something very similar?

spullara 7mo ago
There is no doubt in my mind that it could still do it.

spullara 7mo ago

In order for it to be creatively derivative you would need to copy the structure, logic, organization, and sequence of operations not just reimplement the functionality. It is pretty clear in this case that wasn't done.

cubefox 7mo ago
It's not clear at all.

bmcahren 7mo ago

LLMs do not encode nor encrypt their training data. The fact they can recite training data is a defect not a default. You can understand this more simply by calculating the model size as an inverse of a fantasy compression algorithm that is 50% better than SOTA. You'll find you'd still be missing 80-90% of the training data even if it were as much of a stochastic parrot as you may be implying. The outputs of AI are not derivative just because they saw training data including the original library. Then onto prompting: 'He fed only the API and (his) test suite to Claude' This is Google v Oracle all over again - are APIs copyrightable?

satvikpendem 7mo ago
> This is Google v Oracle all over again - are APIs copyrightable? Yes this is the best way to ask the question. If I take a public facing API and reimplement everything, whether it's by human or machine, it should be sufficient. After all, that's what Google did, and it's not like their engineers never read a single line of the Java source code. Even in "clean room" implementations, a human might still have remembered or recalled a previous implementation of some function they had encountered before.
thunderfork 7mo ago
I find the "compression" argument not very strong, both because copyright still applies to (very) lossy codecs (e.g. your 16kbps Opus file of Thriller infringes, even if the original 192khz/32bit wav file was 12,000kbps), and because copyright still applies to transformed derivative works (a tiny midi file of Thriller might still be enough for the Jackson's label to get you)
azakai 7mo ago
> LLMs do not encode nor encrypt their training data. The fact they can recite training data is a defect not a default. About this specific point, it is unclear how much of a defect memorization actually is - there are also reasons to see it as necessary for effective learning. This link explains it well: https://infinitefaculty.substack.com/p/memorization-vs-generalization-in https://infinitefaculty.substack.com/p/memorization-vs-gener...
7mo ago

satvikpendem 7mo ago

> Because IMO it means that the existing work was used as input That's your opinion (since you said "IMO"), not the actual legal definition.