4 ms·

I would really like to see what "appropriately licensed data" means. Cannot imagine they didn't copy all open repo's on GitHub, and can't imagine they asked for

I would really like to see what "appropriately licensed data" means. Cannot imagine they didn't copy all open repo's on GitHub, and can't imagine they asked for permission, or are reproducing license texts from these repo's now. It sounds hand wavy. P.S. A fairly basic website otherwise, but it unfortunately seems to be hacking scroll for no good reason.

stingraycharles 4mo ago
I assume they took the actual repos’ licenses info account. I don’t understand why they should ask for permission when the license would already allow for it.
- rocqua 4mo ago
  Which licenses allow usage for training? MIT, BSD, etc likely do. But I would expect it gets weird for all the various copyleft licences.
  - cortesoft 4mo ago
    Why would it get weird for those?
    - rzmmm 4mo ago
      Theoretically it mandates that derivative works use same license but it's unclear if that applies to LLM outputs.
- foresterre 4mo ago
  Almost all licenses have requirements to redistribute copies of the work, or derivatives thereof. Even permissive licenses do. It's very little to ask when open source dev's provided thousands of hours of free work. For example, the Apache 2.0 license requires in just 4.c: You must retain, in the Source form of any Derivative Works that You distribute, all copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices from the Source form of the Work, excluding those notices that do not pertain to any part of the Derivative Works; Just because they're tokenized and transformed into a probabilistic mapping, doesn't suddenly mean that they weren't copied. I find it morally unethical that they (likely) just ingest IP of all open source repo's without asking, but also importantly without any attribution. Let me also note that I'm not against LLM's in general. But I do think training on open source must be opt-in, and I look forward to a world with actually ethical, and traceable (i.e. on what they were trained on, like a bill of materials (BOM)), models.
  - stingraycharles 4mo ago
    But that’s what I meant with taking it into account. They would likely only use BSD and MIT licensed repos, which is a lot.
VortexLain 4mo ago
Recently, GitHub has changed their terms of service to use all user data for AI training unless users explicitly opt out. This is probably the way Microsoft has obtained "appropriately licensed data".
- mattnewton 4mo ago
  this is almost certainly too recent to have been used for training data, no? Unless they optimistically included most repos somehow?
ralph84 4mo ago
Presumably their position remains that training on public repos is fair use and doesn't require a license. If it doesn't require a license it's still "appropriately licensed".

stingraycharles 4mo ago

I assume they took the actual repos’ licenses info account. I don’t understand why they should ask for permission when the license would already allow for it.

rocqua 4mo ago
Which licenses allow usage for training? MIT, BSD, etc likely do. But I would expect it gets weird for all the various copyleft licences.
- cortesoft 4mo ago
  Why would it get weird for those?
  - rzmmm 4mo ago
    Theoretically it mandates that derivative works use same license but it's unclear if that applies to LLM outputs.
foresterre 4mo ago
Almost all licenses have requirements to redistribute copies of the work, or derivatives thereof. Even permissive licenses do. It's very little to ask when open source dev's provided thousands of hours of free work. For example, the Apache 2.0 license requires in just 4.c: You must retain, in the Source form of any Derivative Works that You distribute, all copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices from the Source form of the Work, excluding those notices that do not pertain to any part of the Derivative Works; Just because they're tokenized and transformed into a probabilistic mapping, doesn't suddenly mean that they weren't copied. I find it morally unethical that they (likely) just ingest IP of all open source repo's without asking, but also importantly without any attribution. Let me also note that I'm not against LLM's in general. But I do think training on open source must be opt-in, and I look forward to a world with actually ethical, and traceable (i.e. on what they were trained on, like a bill of materials (BOM)), models.
- stingraycharles 4mo ago
  But that’s what I meant with taking it into account. They would likely only use BSD and MIT licensed repos, which is a lot.

VortexLain 4mo ago

Recently, GitHub has changed their terms of service to use all user data for AI training unless users explicitly opt out. This is probably the way Microsoft has obtained "appropriately licensed data".

mattnewton 4mo ago
this is almost certainly too recent to have been used for training data, no? Unless they optimistically included most repos somehow?

ralph84 4mo ago

Presumably their position remains that training on public repos is fair use and doesn't require a license. If it doesn't require a license it's still "appropriately licensed".