Hacker News Reader

Comment by mathisfun123 | Hacker News Reader

you can copyright a specific implementation but that doesn't necessarily grant a patent on the "algorithm". so unless darling is patented then a translation of the "algorithms" in darling is legal. to wit: that's why all the "numerical recipes" books couldn't block implementations in other languages.

View on HN

IANAL and I don't think you are either. Be careful making simplistic inferences about a complicated system. Human "translation" is one thing, algorithmic "translation" has seen separate treatment in IP case law.[1] Whether this has relevance to LLM transformation or recall I don't know.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Systems,_Inc._v._Souther....

Do you understand what you're saying?

> Human "translation" is one thing

No it's not since "human translation" is literally all we had until about a year ago.

You should read the case again because it doesn't say what you think it says - it says generating a copyrighted work via a new system is still infringement (which is exactly what I'm arguing isn't happening in this case because what's being generated is a new language impl).

To put it very simply: if I use a machine (biological or electrical) to translate my favorite song into another language that's not infringement.

We've had mechanical/automated/algorithmic transformation of copyrighted works for over 100 years now. There are plenty of non-AI systems for translating code from one language to another. In the context of shifting a program between programming languages LLMs are just another algorithmic transformation technology. In any case, shifting a program from one language to another is not some kind of magic copyright erasure technique, whether or not an LLM is used. The law has codified procedures to assess infringement. If mechanical means is used (i.e. an LLM) the output is literally a function of the input. Good luck.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com