> while retaining control of every line
What I want when I'm coding, especially on open source side projects, is to retain copyright licensing over every line (cleanly, without lying about anything).
Whoops!
What I want when I'm coding, especially on open source side projects, is to retain copyright licensing over every line (cleanly, without lying about anything).
Whoops!
[1] https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/ai-machine-learning/p...
[2] https://www.anthropic.com/news/expanded-legal-protections-ap...
"We are going to use our deep billionaire pockets to squash the fucker artist who dares identify something of his that we stole, that made its way into your output ..."
In the case of copyleft licenses like GPL, IP is applied in a way to ensure that users have the code.
These things are taken away when the code is laundered through AI.
Photography started displacing painting as a form of portraiture, but displacing a technique is not the same thing as appropriating the work itself.
Of course the AI robber barons would that it be so, but it must not be and should not be.
Training gobbles up works in their entirety, verbatim.
Fair use of the verbatim words of a written work requires the excerpt to be small.
Fair use also usually requires attribution, which is missing.
Transformative works like parodies are also fair use, but the LLM isn't transformative int his sense; it's strawman transformative like a meat grinder.
Parodies use the structure of something existing, as a vehicle for original thought which is why they are protected from copyright claims by the authors of whatever is pariodied.
I'm not even talking about big corporations with proprietary models, in fact I oppose their not being open source or weight, I want more open models not fewer as that at least democratizes the value of LLMs. The worst case is having copyright hawks allowing regulatory capture by big AI corps by pushing regulations about licensing content, which, of course, no open model company will be able to afford in the future. I find that infinitely worse than having more lax copyright laws, where only a few corporations can tell you want to think via usage of their LLMs.
Lastly, no one can tell me from first principles why LLM training is bad, on the copyright side, other than, it just is, because copyright law dictates it so. Perhaps copyright law is what needs to be abolished, not LLMs.
> Perhaps copyright law is what needs to be abolished, not LLMs.
Sure, now that it's inconvenient for some billionaires --- who themselves have nothing to protect, because everything they offer is a service the user can only access through the network, while they have a subscription.
No, not just now, since forever. I suppose Stallman being right all along is about this concept. And just to be clear, I'm not a supporter of current closed source AI companies, like I said I want to see open models succeed.
As I asked above, it really does look like no one can explain why LLM training is bad, besides saying it's bad. Therefore I will continue to reject IP as a concept.
So discussions revolving about doing so less directly through training a model just add distracting details that don't matter.
If everyone did that (due to there not being any rules against that), then fewer people would write programs under free licenses. Many such developers are volunteers, whose only payment is that the work product is theirs to license how they want.
Having that taken away from us is discouraging.
We haven't done anything to deserve such a "fuck you".
For starters, because of the western values of giving credit.
We have diseases named after people, never mind inventions and ideas.
Plagiarism is kick-out-of-school grade academic misconduct, whereby you are pretending that someone's work (and the ability it implies) is your own.
> The only sort of property that actually exists is real and tangible.
Remember, I'm talking about works that are free to redistribute, use and even modify. Or in other cases, that the users to whom a compiled work is distributed have access to the buildable source code.
The authors put their names on it, and terms which says that their notices are to be preserved when copies are made.
This isn't good enough for the Altmans and Amodeis of the world.
> it's an issue due to the effect that students won't learn well if they just copy everything
... and fraudulently obtain professional licensing, and use that to cause harm: medical malpractice, unsafe engineering.
It is fraud.
I am also not sure why you keep bringing up Altman et al, I really don't give a shit what they are talking about, that is not what I am discussing. You for some reason keep trying to inject your views on these people when they are not relevant to the points I made which are about the theoretical concepts of machine learning and training, and its intersection with intellectual property. I am not interested in your opinions on these people, and they are not the only ones who stand to benefit from democratization of AI models and publishing of weights for the public.
Anyway, I think we both fundamentally have different views on the freedom of information and the fallacious nature of IP that cannot be changed online so I will bid you a good day and won't continue this conversation further, as I don't think it's productive for either of us.