6 ms·

I think the missing thing here is that the license violation already happened. Most of the big models trained on data in a manner that violated terms of servic

by munk-a 7mo ago

I think the missing thing here is that the license violation already happened. Most of the big models trained on data in a manner that violated terms of service. We'll need a court case but I think it's extremely reasonable to consider any model trained on GPL code to be infected with open licensing requirements.

NewsaHackO 7mo ago
I agree there has to be a court case about it. I think the current argument, however, is that it is transformative, and therefore falls under fair use.
- munk-a 7mo ago
  Yea, a finding that training is transformative would be pretty significant and it's likely that the precedent of thumbnail creation being deemed transformative would likely steer us towards such a finding. Transformative is always a hard thing to bank on because it is such a nebulous and judgement based call. There are excellent examples of how precise and gritty this can get in audio sampling.
  - NewsaHackO 7mo ago
    Didn't know about thumbnails being fair use. In that case, I just don't see an argument that genAI training on source code is less transformative than thumbnails.
- jazzyjackson 7mo ago
  You don’t get to simply claim fair use based on how transformative your derivative work is. “”” Section 107 calls for consideration of the following four factors in evaluating a question of fair use: Purpose and character of the use, including whether the use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes: Courts look at how the party claiming fair use is using the copyrighted work, and are more likely to find that nonprofit educational and noncommercial uses are fair. This does not mean, however, that all nonprofit education and noncommercial uses are fair and all commercial uses are not fair; instead, courts will balance the purpose and character of the use against the other factors below. Additionally, “transformative” uses are more likely to be considered fair. Transformative uses are those that add something new, with a further purpose or different character, and do not substitute for the original use of the work. Nature of the copyrighted work: This factor analyzes the degree to which the work that was used relates to copyright’s purpose of encouraging creative expression. Thus, using a more creative or imaginative work (such as a novel, movie, or song) is less likely to support a claim of a fair use than using a factual work (such as a technical article or news item). In addition, use of an unpublished work is less likely to be considered fair. Amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole: Under this factor, courts look at both the quantity and quality of the copyrighted material that was used. If the use includes a large portion of the copyrighted work, fair use is less likely to be found; if the use employs only a small amount of copyrighted material, fair use is more likely. That said, some courts have found use of an entire work to be fair under certain circumstances. And in other contexts, using even a small amount of a copyrighted work was determined not to be fair because the selection was an important part—or the “heart”—of the work. Effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work: Here, courts review whether, and to what extent, the unlicensed use harms the existing or future market for the copyright owner’s original work. In assessing this factor, courts consider whether the use is hurting the current market for the original work (for example, by displacing sales of the original) and/or whether the use could cause substantial harm if it were to become widespread. “”” https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/ https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/
  - NewsaHackO 7mo ago
    >I haven't claimed anything, The courts did: https://www.whitecase.com/insight-alert/two-california-district-judges-rule-using-books-train-ai-fair-use https://www.whitecase.com/insight-alert/two-california-distr.... And regardless, my point still stands that it is an open question; however, given the already present body of cases, it is tipping in the favor of the AI companies. Also, if thumbnails fall under fair use due to it being transformative of full-sized pictures, I cannot see an argument that AI training on data is somehow less transformative than downscaling an image for a thumbnail.
crazygringo 7mo ago
You might wish that were true, but there are very strong arguments it's not. Training on copyleft licensed code is not a license violation. Any more than a person reading it is. In copyright terms, it's such an extreme transformative use that copyright no longer applies. It's fair use. But agreed that we're waiting for a court case to confirm that. Although really, the main questions for any court cases are not going to be around the principle of fair use itself or whether training is transformative enough (it obviously is), but rather on the specifics: 1) Was any copyrighted material acquired legally (not applicable here), and 2) Is the LLM always providing a unique expression (e.g. not regurgitating books or libraries verbatim) And in this particular case, they confirmed that the new implementation is 98.7% unique.
- gspr 7mo ago
  > Training on copyleft licensed code is not a license violation. Any more than a person reading it is. Some might hold that we've granted persons certain exemptions, on account of them being persons. We do not have to grant machines the same. > In copyright terms, it's such an extreme transformative use that copyright no longer applies. Has the model really performed an extreme transformation if it is able to produce the training data near-verbatim? Sure, it can also produce extremely transformed versions, but is that really relevant if it holds within it enough information for a (near-)verbatim reproduction?
  - crazygringo 7mo ago
    > We do not have to grant machines the same. No we don't have to, but so far we do, because that's the most legally consistent. If you want to change that, you're going to need to pass new laws that may wind up radically redefining intellectual property. > Has the model really performed an extreme transformation if it is able to produce the training data near-verbatim? Of course it has, if the transformation is extreme, as it appears to be here. If I memorize the lyrics to a bunch of love songs, and then write my own love song where every line is new, nobody's going to successfully sue me just because I can sing a bunch of other songs from memory. Also, it's not even remotely clear that the LLM can produce the training data near-verbatim. Generally it can't, unless it's something that it's been trained on with high levels of repetition.
paxys 7mo ago
The act of training by itself has been ruled to be fair use over and over again, including for LLMs, and there isn't much debate left there. The test for infringement is if the output is transformative enough, and that is what NYT vs OpenAI etc. are arguing.
steve_gh 7mo ago
Is the LLM acting as my agent? If the LLM has been exposed to the source code then have I been exposed to the source code? So in that case is a "clean room" implementation possible?

by munk-a 7mo ago

NewsaHackO 7mo ago

I agree there has to be a court case about it. I think the current argument, however, is that it is transformative, and therefore falls under fair use.

munk-a 7mo ago
Yea, a finding that training is transformative would be pretty significant and it's likely that the precedent of thumbnail creation being deemed transformative would likely steer us towards such a finding. Transformative is always a hard thing to bank on because it is such a nebulous and judgement based call. There are excellent examples of how precise and gritty this can get in audio sampling.
- NewsaHackO 7mo ago
  Didn't know about thumbnails being fair use. In that case, I just don't see an argument that genAI training on source code is less transformative than thumbnails.
jazzyjackson 7mo ago
You don’t get to simply claim fair use based on how transformative your derivative work is. “”” Section 107 calls for consideration of the following four factors in evaluating a question of fair use: Purpose and character of the use, including whether the use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes: Courts look at how the party claiming fair use is using the copyrighted work, and are more likely to find that nonprofit educational and noncommercial uses are fair. This does not mean, however, that all nonprofit education and noncommercial uses are fair and all commercial uses are not fair; instead, courts will balance the purpose and character of the use against the other factors below. Additionally, “transformative” uses are more likely to be considered fair. Transformative uses are those that add something new, with a further purpose or different character, and do not substitute for the original use of the work. Nature of the copyrighted work: This factor analyzes the degree to which the work that was used relates to copyright’s purpose of encouraging creative expression. Thus, using a more creative or imaginative work (such as a novel, movie, or song) is less likely to support a claim of a fair use than using a factual work (such as a technical article or news item). In addition, use of an unpublished work is less likely to be considered fair. Amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole: Under this factor, courts look at both the quantity and quality of the copyrighted material that was used. If the use includes a large portion of the copyrighted work, fair use is less likely to be found; if the use employs only a small amount of copyrighted material, fair use is more likely. That said, some courts have found use of an entire work to be fair under certain circumstances. And in other contexts, using even a small amount of a copyrighted work was determined not to be fair because the selection was an important part—or the “heart”—of the work. Effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work: Here, courts review whether, and to what extent, the unlicensed use harms the existing or future market for the copyright owner’s original work. In assessing this factor, courts consider whether the use is hurting the current market for the original work (for example, by displacing sales of the original) and/or whether the use could cause substantial harm if it were to become widespread. “”” https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/ https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/
- NewsaHackO 7mo ago
  >I haven't claimed anything, The courts did: https://www.whitecase.com/insight-alert/two-california-district-judges-rule-using-books-train-ai-fair-use https://www.whitecase.com/insight-alert/two-california-distr.... And regardless, my point still stands that it is an open question; however, given the already present body of cases, it is tipping in the favor of the AI companies. Also, if thumbnails fall under fair use due to it being transformative of full-sized pictures, I cannot see an argument that AI training on data is somehow less transformative than downscaling an image for a thumbnail.

crazygringo 7mo ago

You might wish that were true, but there are very strong arguments it's not. Training on copyleft licensed code is not a license violation. Any more than a person reading it is. In copyright terms, it's such an extreme transformative use that copyright no longer applies. It's fair use. But agreed that we're waiting for a court case to confirm that. Although really, the main questions for any court cases are not going to be around the principle of fair use itself or whether training is transformative enough (it obviously is), but rather on the specifics: 1) Was any copyrighted material acquired legally (not applicable here), and 2) Is the LLM always providing a unique expression (e.g. not regurgitating books or libraries verbatim) And in this particular case, they confirmed that the new implementation is 98.7% unique.

gspr 7mo ago
> Training on copyleft licensed code is not a license violation. Any more than a person reading it is. Some might hold that we've granted persons certain exemptions, on account of them being persons. We do not have to grant machines the same. > In copyright terms, it's such an extreme transformative use that copyright no longer applies. Has the model really performed an extreme transformation if it is able to produce the training data near-verbatim? Sure, it can also produce extremely transformed versions, but is that really relevant if it holds within it enough information for a (near-)verbatim reproduction?
- crazygringo 7mo ago
  > We do not have to grant machines the same. No we don't have to, but so far we do, because that's the most legally consistent. If you want to change that, you're going to need to pass new laws that may wind up radically redefining intellectual property. > Has the model really performed an extreme transformation if it is able to produce the training data near-verbatim? Of course it has, if the transformation is extreme, as it appears to be here. If I memorize the lyrics to a bunch of love songs, and then write my own love song where every line is new, nobody's going to successfully sue me just because I can sing a bunch of other songs from memory. Also, it's not even remotely clear that the LLM can produce the training data near-verbatim. Generally it can't, unless it's something that it's been trained on with high levels of repetition.

paxys 7mo ago

The act of training by itself has been ruled to be fair use over and over again, including for LLMs, and there isn't much debate left there. The test for infringement is if the output is transformative enough, and that is what NYT vs OpenAI etc. are arguing.

steve_gh 7mo ago

Is the LLM acting as my agent? If the LLM has been exposed to the source code then have I been exposed to the source code? So in that case is a "clean room" implementation possible?