2 ms·

> 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 u

> 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. This is just an assertion that you're making. There's no argument here. I'm aware that this is also an assertion that some judges have made. My claim is that LLMs are not human, therefore when you apply words like "training" to them, you're only doing it metaphorically. It's no more "training" than copying code to a different hard drive is training that hard drive. And it's no more "transformative" than rar'ing or zipping the code, then unzipping it. I can't sell my jpgs of pngs I downloaded from Getty. I have no idea how LLMs can be considered transformative work that immunizes me from owing the least bit of respect to the source material, but if I sample 2-6 second snatches from 10 different songs, put them through over 9000 filters and blend them into a new work, I owe money to everyone involved. I might even owe money to the people who wrote the filters, depending on the licensing. > 98.7% unique. This doesn't mean anything. This is a meaningless arrangement of words. The way we figure out things are piracy is through provenance, not bizarre ad hoc measurements. If I read a book in Spanish and rewrite it in English, it doesn't suddenly become mine even though it's 96.6492387% unique. Not even if I drop a few chapters, add in a couple of my own, and change the ending.

crazygringo 8mo ago
> This is just an assertion that you're making. There's no argument here. ...OK? Was somebody asking me for an "argument"? I'm just stating how things are currently understood. > And it's no more "transformative" than rar'ing or zipping the code, then unzipping it. That's obviously false, so I'm not sure what to tell you. > but if I sample 2-6 second snatches from 10 different songs, put them through over 9000 filters and blend them into a new work, I owe money to everyone involved You don't, actually, if they're no longer recognizable -- which they wouldn't be after "9000 filters". I don't know where you got that idea that you'd still owe money. And I've certainly never heard of an audio filter license that was contingent on commerical distribution. > This doesn't mean anything. This is a meaningless arrangement of words. Statistics are meaningful. Obviously you need to look at the actual identical lines. But if they're a bunch of trivial things like initializing variables with obvious names, then they don't count for much. And if you're adhering to the same API, you would expect to have some small percentage of lines happen to match. So the fact that this is <2%, as opposed to 40%, is hugely significant as a first step of analysis. I suggest you might find conversations here on HN more productive if you soften your tone a bit. Saying things like "this is just an assertion that you're making" or "this is a meaningless arrangement of words" is not generally going to make people want to respond to you.

crazygringo 8mo ago

> This is just an assertion that you're making. There's no argument here. ...OK? Was somebody asking me for an "argument"? I'm just stating how things are currently understood. > And it's no more "transformative" than rar'ing or zipping the code, then unzipping it. That's obviously false, so I'm not sure what to tell you. > but if I sample 2-6 second snatches from 10 different songs, put them through over 9000 filters and blend them into a new work, I owe money to everyone involved You don't, actually, if they're no longer recognizable -- which they wouldn't be after "9000 filters". I don't know where you got that idea that you'd still owe money. And I've certainly never heard of an audio filter license that was contingent on commerical distribution. > This doesn't mean anything. This is a meaningless arrangement of words. Statistics are meaningful. Obviously you need to look at the actual identical lines. But if they're a bunch of trivial things like initializing variables with obvious names, then they don't count for much. And if you're adhering to the same API, you would expect to have some small percentage of lines happen to match. So the fact that this is <2%, as opposed to 40%, is hugely significant as a first step of analysis. I suggest you might find conversations here on HN more productive if you soften your tone a bit. Saying things like "this is just an assertion that you're making" or "this is a meaningless arrangement of words" is not generally going to make people want to respond to you.