I agree with the fact that LLMs are big open-source laundering machines, and that is a problem.
I mostly see it as a problem for copyleft licences. Permissive don't protect the users in the first place, so...
I mostly see it as a problem for copyleft licences. Permissive don't protect the users in the first place, so...
Feels like we're pretty much screwed. Doesn't mean it's not a problem.
Unless there's a specific copyright claim over a specific piece of code that was copied and published, it's hard to see how the GPL has any relevance.
"My clipboard learned the code, just like a human would. So it should be fine to copy-paste anything and call it my own".
"How is killing a human any different to killing a computer?"
"If humans can vote, why couldn't computers vote as well?"
Can we start at "humans are not computers", maybe?
Sure. So it stands to reason that "computers" are not bound by human laws. So an LLM that finds a piece of copyright data out there on the internet, downloads it, and republishes it has not broken any law? It certainly can't be prosecuted.
My original point was that copyright protections are about (amongst other things) protecting distribution and derivative works rights. I'm not seeing a coherent argument that feeding a copyrighted work (that you obtained legally) into a machine is breaching anyone's copyright.
Are you even trying? A gun that kills a person has not broken any law? It certainly can't be prosecuted.
> I'm not seeing a coherent argument that feeding a copyrighted work (that you obtained legally) into a machine is breaching anyone's copyright.
So you don't see how having an automated blackbox that takes copyrighted material as an input and provides a competing alternative that can't be proven to come from the input goes against the idea of copyright protections?
Yeah dude…its an inanimate object.
Semantically, this is the same as a human reading all of Tom Clancy and then writing a fast-paced action/war/tension novel.
Is that in breach of copyright?
Copyright protects the expression of an idea. Not the idea.
Copyright laws were written before LLMs. Because a new technology can completely bypass the law doesn't mean that it is okay.
If I write a novel, I deserve credit for it and I deserve the right to sell it and to prevent somebody else from selling it in their name. If I was allowed to just copy any book and sell it, I could sell it for much cheaper because I didn't spend a year writing it. And the author would be screwed because people would buy my version (cheaper) and would possibly never even hear of the original author (say if my process of copying everything is good enough and I make a "Netflix of stolen books").
Now if I take the book, have it automatically translated by a program and sell it in my name, that's also illegal, right? Even though it may be harder to detect: say I translate a Spanish book to Mandarin, someone would need to realise that I "stole" the Spanish book. But we wouldn't want this to be legal, would we?
An LLM does that in a way that is much harder to detect. In the era of LLMs, if I write a technical blog, nobody will ever see it because they will get the information from the LLM that trained on my blog. If I open source code, nobody will ever see it if they can just ask their LLM to write an entire program that does the same thing. But chances are that the LLM couldn't have done it without having trained on my code. So the LLM is "stealing" my work.
You could say "the solution is to not open source anything", but that's not enough: art (movie, books, paintings, ...) fundamentally has to be shown and can therefore be trained on. LLMs bring us towards a point where open source, source available or proprietary, none of those concepts will matter: if you manage to train your LLM on that code (even proprietary code that was illegally leaked), you'll have essentially stolen it in a way that may be impossible to detect.
How in the world does it sound like it is a desirable future?
Why do you believe this is a problem? I mean, to believe that you first need to believe that having access to the source code is somehow a problem.
> I mostly see it as a problem for copyleft licences.
Nonsense.
At most, the problem lies in people ignoring what rights a FLOSS license grants to end users, and then feigning surprise when end users use their software just as the FLOSS license intended.
Also a telltale sign is the fact that these blind criticisms single out very precise corporations. Apparently they have absolutely no issue if any other cloud provider sells managed services. They single out AWS but completely ignore the fact that the organization behind ValKey includes the likes of Google, Ericsson, and even Oracle of all things. Somehow only AWS is the problem.
How in the world did you get there from what I said? Open source code has a licence that says what the copyright owner allows or not. LLMs are laundering machine in the sense that they allow anybody to just ignore licences and copyright in all code (even proprietary code: if you manage to train on the code of Windows without getting caught, you're good).
> At most, the problem lies in people ignoring what rights a FLOSS license grants to end users
Once it's been used to train an LLM, there is no right anymore. The licence, copyright, all that is worthless.
> Also a telltale sign is the fact that these blind criticisms [...]
No clue what you are talking about here.
No. Having access to the code does that. You only need a single determined engineer to do that. I mean, do you believe that until the inception of LLMs the world was completely unaware of the whole concept of reverse engineering stuff?
> Once it's been used to train an LLM, there is no right anymore.
Nonsense. You do not lose your rights to your work just because someone used a glorified template engine to write something similar. In fact, your whole blend of comment conveys a complete lack of experience using LLMs in coding applications, because all major assistant coding services do enforce copyright filters even when asking questions.
The scale makes all the difference! A single determined engineer, in their whole life, cannot remotely read all the code that goes into the training phase. How in the world can you believe it is the same thing?
> Nonsense. You do not lose your rights to your work just because [...]
It is only nonsense if you don't try to understand what I'm saying. What I am saying is that if it is impossible to prove that the LLM was trained with copyrighted material, then the copyright doesn't matter.
But maybe your single determined engineer can reverse engineer any trained LLM and extract the copyright code that was used in the training?