It's just the rich getting richer by taking from everyone so little that no individual bothers to fight back.
2) It's not just ML companies but anyone using their products.
A while ago everyone was upset that chatGPT regurgitated fast inverse square root from Quake's GPL code verbatim including a comment, clearly violating the license unless the program it generated it into was also under GPL.
I am sure since then they've made sure the copyrighted material used as training data gets misex up a bit more thoroughly so it doesn't produce it in the output verbatim and is therefore harder to detect.
So what if i spend a couple days writing an algorithm, give it a nice doc comment and tests, publish it under AGPL, it gets used as training data and a random programmer in a random company working on a random for-profit product runs into the same problem but instead of writing the algo himself, he asks a generative model and it produces my code just a little mixed up so it's not immediately recognizable but clearly based on my code? I deserve to be paid, that's what happens.
Yes, current AIs just remix their training data in a rather direct way. But in the end how different is that to how humans create? I would suggest we should embrace this new way of creating things while finding laws to empower all creators and not only those who were hired by deep pockets.
Laws generally don't encode what is right but a compromise between the state's interests, lobbyists and the general population making enough ruckus if too unsatisfied.
> But in the end how different is that to how humans create?
1) Scale. Some strategies that are socially acceptable when done by individuals but not when done at a massive scale. For example because individuals have very limited time and can invest very limited effort. Looking at a website is perfectly OK. Making thousands of requests a second might be considered an attack. Human memory is limited. Similar principles apply to humans looking at code.
2) Source of data. Much of human "input" is viewing the real world (not copyrighted material) through their senses. Much of learning is from teachers or documentation, both of which voluntarily give me information.
I don't know about you but when I wanna know how to use a particular function, I don't go looking through random GH repos to see how other people use it, I go to the docs.
> finding laws to empower all creators and not only those who were hired by deep pockets
That is not even the only issue. When I publish something under AGPL, my users have the right to modify the code, even if my code gets to them through some third party. LLMs allow laundering code and taking that right from (my) users.
> Laws generally don't encode what is right but a compromise between the state's interests, lobbyists and the general population making enough ruckus if too unsatisfied.
of course, but I actually think that this is the correct moral stand. Patenting algorithms is like patenting thoughts.
> I don't know about you but when I wanna know how to use a particular function, I don't go looking through random GH repos to see how other people use it, I go to the docs.
I always look into sources. Usually I look into the code I want to call first. But this is probably also because I mainly use Java.
So if I read your AGPL code and implement something similar in another programming language after also reading other implementations of the algorithm, is that something I have to attribute you for? Isn't code just an executable documentation of an algorithm? Especially if the algorithm is well known, I don't see any injustice here - "Die Gedanken sind frei". If I copy your code via copy and paste, then this is an infringement, but just retelling a similar story should not be affected by copyright.
OK, I agree there, I should have written "function" or "module" something similar. Something that takes nontrivial amounts of work and although it is based on some general principles which should not be patentable/copyrightable, their particular implementation is novel/unique enough that it would take nontrivial amounts of work to replicate the functionality without seeing the original.
> is that something I have to attribute you for
Depends how closely you follow my implementation.
If you use my code as the only reference and translate it verbatim (whether manually or using a tool), then you should credit me. If you look at many implementations, form an _understanding_ of the algorithm in general, then write your own implementation based on that understanding, then probably not.
The question is where LLMs stand. They mix enough sources that crediting all of them would be impractical and in practise they end up crediting none. But their proponents (who always call them AI, sometimes even using pronouns like "he" to refer to the models) argue that the models also form an _understanding_ rather than just regurgitating a mix of inputs. And I have to disagree, what I see is an imitation of reasoning/understanding which is sometimes convincing due to how complex statistics are being used inside the models. But they are still just statistical models of existing content and we see that every time somebody releases a new model, HN upvotes it to the top and a few hours later we inevitable see people giving it trivial questions which it fails to answer correctly.
My other two points:
- Even if an ML company made a model that is actually intelligent, the burden of proof should be on them, otherwise or until them, it's just a remix of existing work. BTW this reminds me an interesting comparison is remixes vs cover songs in music.
- Code is famously harder to read than write. If a human takes time to understand a piece of code and reimplement it not verbatim, then he generally does not get ahead by much. An LLM can do this at scale and speed unattainable by humans.
Let's say two products compete (purely on features and quality instead of marketing - for the sake of argument). One is written first, is novel and written fully by humans. The other is written by training a model on the first product's code and using the model to generate the same product, all within hours or days instead of months or years. The other puts in less actual work but gets the same result. It is clearly parasiting on the first, benefiting from their work without giving them credit or compensation.
---
Bottom line is copyright is meant to protect authors who invest effort into creating. Whether it succeeds in that can sometimes be questionable. But using an algorithm (even a very complex one) to take a bit of everyone's work and redistribute is for free without crediting or compensating them does not benefit authors.
I hate analogies but if I write banking software and send 0.000000001% of every transaction to my account, none of the individuals thusly affected probably care that much but I am still going to prison.
I am not sure about that. As long as they also can benefit from it, it just accelerates creation of new things.
> I hate analogies but if I write banking software and send 0.000000001% of every transaction to my account, none of the individuals thusly affected probably care that much but I am still going to prison.
As long as the amount goes to everybody, I don't think this "tax" would be a problem. Human beings can only survive in a collective after all.
Totalitarian systems of ruling have always devolved into suffering on a massive scale and although we're seeing a dictatorship prosper, probably for the first time in history, in China, it's just on add case that goes against the trend. It does not disprove the trend, dictatorships have always devolved into abuse of power, China is already promising massive suffering externally by threatening to invade Taiwan (which is a continuation of the legitimate Chinese government which was illegally overthrown by communist rebels in mainland China). And I have no doubt, China will devolve into internal suffering once its current dictator dies and a new one takes his place.
The west is only throwing away its values (such as individual freedom) because it is afraid of China getting a short-term lead.
To reply point by point:
> they also can benefit from it
One person puts in work and everyone benefits equally, sounds good on the surface because it only uses positive words, yet when you look at the meaning, I could equally use it to justify taking your entire salary away from you and redistributing it to every person on the planet equally. Would you be OK with that, jst because you get your equal share?
You might be tempted to answer yes if everyone suffered the same treatment. Now consider if you were OK with it if only 1% of the population worked and was forced to feed the rest.
> I don't think this "tax" would be a problem
I describe theft and you call it a tax...
> Human beings can only survive in a collective after all.
That absolutely does not mean that you should be forced to become a part of a collective against your will or that you have no say who is in the collective with you.