And people still support it by uploading to GitHub.
Large language models are used to aggregate and interpolate intellectual property.
This is performed with no acknowledgement of authorship or lineage, with no attribution or citation.
In effect, the intellectual property used to train such models becomes anonymous common property.
The social rewards (e.g., credit, respect) that often motivate open source work are undermined.
Embrace, extend, extinguish.
You mean people making contributions to solve problems and scratch each others' itches got displaced by people seeking social status and/or a do-at-your-own-pace accreditation outside of formal structures, to show to prospective employees? And now that LLMs start letting people solve their own coding problems, sidestepping their whole social game, the credit seekers complain because large corps did something they couldn't possibly have done?
I mean sure, their contributions were a critical piece - in aggregate - individually, any single piece of OSS code contributes approximately 0 value to LLM training. But they're somehow entitled to the reward for a vastly greater value someone is providing, just because they retroactively feel they contributed.
Or, looking from a different angle: what the complainers are saying is, they're sad they can't extract rent now that their past work became valuable for reasons they had no part in, and if they could turn back time, they'd happily rent-seek the shit out of their code, to the point of destroying LLMs as a possibility, and denying the world the value LLMs provided?
I have little sympathy for that argument. We've been calling out "copyright laundering" way before GPT-3 was a thing - those who don't like to contribute without capturing all the value for themselves should've moved off GitHub years ago. It's not like GitHub has any hold over OSS other than plain inertia (and the egos in the community - social signalling games create a network effect).
Wrong and completely unfair/bitter accusation. The only people rent seeking are the corporations.
What kind of world do you want to live in? The one with "social games" or the one with corporate games? The one with corporate games seems to have less and less room for artists, musicians, language graduates, programmers...
You are attributing arguments to people which they never made. The most lenient of open source licenses require a simple citation, which the "A.I." never provides. Your tone comes off as pretty condescending, in my opinion. My summary of what you wrote: "I know they violated your license, but too bad! You're not as important as you think!"
> they can't extract rent now that their past work became valuable for reasons they had no part in.
That is not the case at all. If I donate food to Africa, I'm happy if it goes to humans. I'm not happy if a Mafia organization steals the food in transit, repackages it and sells it.
GitHub hosts a lot of source code, including presumably the code it trained CoPilot on. So they satisfy any license that requires sharing the code and license, such as GPL 3. Not sure what the problem is.
It’s slowly, but noticeably moving from GitHub to other sites.
The network effect is hard to work against.
Truth be told, Git is a major pain in the ass anyway and I’m very open to something else.
The irony is of course that open source is what they used to train their models with.
That line of thought would get thrown out of court faster than an AI would generate it.
Me teaching my brain someone’s way of syntactically expressing procedures is analogous to AI developers teaching their model that same mode of expression.
If I can't feed a news article into a classifier to teach it to learn whether or not that I would like that article that's not a world I want to live in. And yes it's exactly the same thing as what you are accusing LLMs of.
They should be subject to laws the same way humans are. If they substantially reproduce code they had access to then it's a copyright violation. Just like it would be for a human doing the same. But highly derived code is not "stolen" code, neither for AI nor for humans.
To me, the argument is a LLM learning from GPL stuff == creating a derivative of the GPL code, just "compressed" within the LLM. The LLM then goes on to create more derivatives, or it's being distributed (with the embedded GPL code).
The AI companies don't care much about this. When the time comes, they will open their models or stop using sources that don't meet the appropriate licensing. Their current concern is learning how to build the best models, and win the race to become the dominant AI provider - who cares if they need to use polluted sources to reach their goal. They will fix it later.
Free software needs more user-facing software, and it needs people other than coders to drive development (think UI people, subject matter specialists, etc.), and AI will help that. While I think what the AI companies are doing is tortious, and that they either should be stopped from doing it or the entire idea of software copyright should be re-examined, I also think that AI will be massively beneficial for Free Software.
I also suspect that this could result in a grand bargain in some court (which favors the billionaires of course) where the AI companies have to pay into a fund of some sort that will be used to pay for FOSS to be created and maintained.
Lastly, maybe Free Software developers should start zipping up all of the OSI licenses that only require that a license be included in the distribution and including that zipfile with their software written in collaboration with AI copilots. That and your latest GPL for the rest (and for your own code) puts you in as safe a place as you could possibly be legally. You'll still be hit by all of the "don't do evil"-style FOSS-esque licenses out there, but you'll at least be safer than all of the proprietary software being written with AI.
I don't know what textbook directs you to eliminate all of your competition by lowering your competition's costs, narrowing your moat of expertise, and not even owning a piece of that.
edit: that being said, I'm obviously talking about Free Software here, and not Open Source. Wasn't Open Source only protected by spirits anyway?