3 ms·
If we take what they're saying as fact and that they didn't copy and paste the code, but for all intents and purposes the LlM basically did reproduce the same c
by bilekas 4mo ago
If we take what they're saying as fact and that they didn't copy and paste the code, but for all intents and purposes the LlM basically did reproduce the same code based on its crawling of the repo and not respecting the license. It would make a great civil case for the courts to decide.
Their defence seems to be "well we asked an LLM to reproduce your work, so 'WE' never copied your code". Smells bad to me.
- PurelyApplied 4mo agoYeah. Like, you can do all this without LLMs. "Oh, I didn't copy this open source repo with a restrictive license, I just found an fork that was identical except for having removed the license. So we used that." That's not how licenses work, and the license holder can absolutely tell you to get bent and/or pony up.
- alsetmusic 4mo ago> Their defence seems to be "well we asked an LLM to reproduce your work, so 'WE' never copied your code". A German court recently ruled that the runners of the agent are responsible for the agent's output. Not in your test environment, of course, but when it reaches the public.