2 ms·
Agree. Especially since even a tainted GPU driver (tainted as in, used former Apple Engineer knowledge) is usefull as we just throw another LLM onto it and tell
by littlecranky67 10d ago
Agree. Especially since even a tainted GPU driver (tainted as in, used former Apple Engineer knowledge) is usefull as we just throw another LLM onto it and tell it "rewrite in rust" and get an untainted version of it (at least that is the current judicial state, and the bigtech argues in this direction).
- mitxela 10d agoAn AI doesn't magically add copyright but it also doesn't magically remove copyright except via diffusion of training data. It does not remove copyright from its input. Malus was a parody. If you machine-translate something from one language to another, copyright is retained no matter how sophisticated the translator is.
- xyzsparetimexyz 10d agoHow is that any different from a clean room?
- preisschild 10d agoWith clean room you just have access to the api specifications, not the internals.
- simoncion 10d agoYep. An entity in the "dirty room" reads the thing to be reimplemented and produces a document that thoroughly describes its behavior. That document is passed to the entity in the "clean room" whose only knowledge of that system is through that document. Reverse engineering is legal, plagiarism is not. Despite the fact that the raw output of the system is incomprehensible to humans, scanning a photograph of Mickey Mouse and running it through a lossy compression system like JPEG doesn't suddenly make it not a picture of Mickey Mouse. Similarly, running the code for a system through the lossy compression system that is LLM "training" doesn't suddenly obliterate that data and make that LLM a "clean room". If one has any doubt of that, remember that they are known to reproduce their inputs, even after all these years of work to make them not do that. [0] [0] <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49727685 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49727685>
- mitxela 9d agoPlagiarism is legal, actually. Copyright infringement is not.
- simoncion 9d agoFair-ish point. I was considering plagiarism in the context of computer programs, which is -at best- dreadfully difficult to do without also violating copyright and/or software licenses. I'd also rephrase your first sentence as "Plagiarism isn't illegal, actually.". Unless you're rich and/or very influential, plagiarism is a seriously bad thing to do.
- xyzsparetimexyz 9d agoOne llm writes the api spec, another writes the api from the spec. No shared context. Easy.
- littlecranky67 10d agoThat remains to be seen (in court). So far you can take any software project written in programming lang $X and have the AI convert it to $Y. Yes, you could say derived work, but it currently impossible to determine if it was rewritten by a human or AI. And there is the point at which every human violates copyright by building on those who came before him - i.e. if I write code in $X, is the inventor of programming language $X entitled to my code - clearly I took his work and built on it. Today the courts say no, this would not be derived work - but it is hard to draw a strict line what is.
- mitxela 7d agoIt doesn't matter if a human or AI did it, because a human translation doesn't remove copyright either.
- fragmede 7d agoCourts have ruled that clean room reimplantation does, however. Decided by the courts in for American Megatrends and Phoenix Technologies for their IBM BIOS reimplementation that lead to the PC revolution in the 1990s.